Allison Pearson: The public is wiser than the net zero hysterics


By Paul Homewood

The broadcast media’s absurd overreaction to the PM’s plans shows the gulf between voters and elite

Poor Justin Rowlatt! Spare a thought for the BBC’s climate editor. He appeared to be having conniptions on News at Ten and that was before the Prime Minister confirmed the rumour that the Government would be rowing back on some of its net zero targets. Justin was nowhere to be seen on Wednesday’s programme after Rishi Sunak had fleshed out the new plan, saying he would delay the ban on new petrol and diesel car sales from 2030 to 2035 and not coerce people into buying one of those unloved heat pumps.

Where was Justin? Had he, like Krook in Bleak House, self-combusted on hearing of this heretical act against the green religion of which he is a high priest? Was he now, indeed, a heap of smouldering ash under the desk at Sophie Raworth’s feet? Perhaps the climate editor has legged it to Mount Ararat where he can gather in the animals two by two, preparing for the Biblical flood that will result from permitting Britons to hang onto their oil and gas boilers until 2035.

In his Tuesday report, Rowlatt seemed to be seething with anger, so entirely lacking in perspective (he failed to mention that pushing back the electric-vehicle target five years merely brings the UK into line with the EU) that I scribbled “Ofcom?” on my pad. Forget the balanced reporting the regulator requires of broadcasters, the climate editor of the publicly-funded BBC is allowed to carry on like a poundshop Nostradamus, furiously brandishing his “The End is Nigh” placard to terrorise viewers.

Over our dismal summer, Rowlatt flew off in search of “heat storms” and “wildfires” which he claimed were directly caused by climate change while the local Spanish arsonist smirked just off-camera with his box of X-long matches and can of petrol. Sorry, but Rowlatt is an activist not a journalist.
That is the kind of blind intransigence Sunak is up against as he dares to challenge the wishful-thinking of the EV evangelists, an establishment chock full of eco-zealots who have never had to put a price on their fantasies. In the boldest speech of his premiership, the PM pointed out, quite reasonably, that the plans to meet net zero will only succeed “if public support is maintained or we risk losing the agenda altogether”.
The man in the street has been way ahead of politicians and the media, refusing to adopt costly or plain stupid measures that don’t make any sense unless you are a member of the powerful Climate Change Committee or have your sticky fingers in a few renewables pies.
Look at Wales. I was supposed to be driving there today to see my mother and sister, but with a reduction in the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph in many areas, my estimated arrival time in Tenby is March 2025. A petition opposing dopey Druid Drakeford’s nonsensical net zero initiative has already attracted over 340,000 signatures – around 22 per cent of the total number of people who voted in Wales in the last general election. A much-mocked video shows Lee Waters, the Labour Senedd member responsible, explaining how an “economic climate catastrophe” will be averted by making Welsh motorists slower than your average dog-walker. His scientific ignorance is sadly ubiquitous.

On ITV, not hiding his displeasure at the PM’s reforms, political editor Robert Peston casually linked global warming with extreme temperatures, proving he doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate.
And with what glee did all mainstream channels report the business backlash against Sunak’s welcome pragmatism. They highlighted critical comments made by the Ford motor company, but somehow failed to mention statements by Toyota and Jaguar Land Rover who said they were actually in favour of a delay. Channel 4 News blew a gasket, of course. The tone of its almost comically partisan coverage was easily gauged from a backdrop that bellowed: Emergency on Planet Earth.
Guests who supported Sunak’s plans on all the channels were few and far between, and when someone was briefly allowed to challenge the green groupthink they were subjected to a much tougher grilling. On Radio 4, Ed Miliband was allowed to get away with saying the delay will “add billions in cost to families”. How? Even if that were true (it so isn’t), it’s a case of billions schmillions compared to the trillions net zero will actually cost the ordinary men and women of this country.

Labour’s shadow climate change alarmist, Ed is so deluded he claims unreliable renewables will provide enough energy “because the wind is always blowing somewhere”. Well, I am reliably informed by a Cambridge professor that the UK could need an impossible number of wind turbines even to begin to provide enough power for all those EVs no one wants to buy. But don’t worry, Ed! Your windmills can carpet over this blessed isle and the 65 million humans can move to the Outer Hebrides. I’m sure it’ll be fine if we all budge up.
As for Boris Johnson lashing out at his successor’s shrewd rethink – Britain “cannot afford to falter now or in any way lose our ambition for this country” – do bear in mind it was dear Boris who made up that unattainable 2030 EV target on the fly to show off to his mates at COP26. Details, details! The fact is we have all been lied to on an unimaginable scale about net zero and its likely cost and consequences. “But we are miles ahead of any other country,” wailed one of the outraged eco-zealots yesterday. Funny that no other country wants to join the UK in a race to impoverish itself, isn’t it? What Kemi Badenoch witheringly called “unilateral economic disarmament”. Would we had more of Kemi’s steely kind. “But net zero will create thousands of high-quality green jobs”, say the zealots. “Yes, in China,’ quipped a Telegraph reader under my column. Spot on, Sir! Don’t let the b——- take you in.

What the past 24 hours of toddler tantrums from Westminster, business and the media (poor Justin Rowlatt crooning green mantras to himself in a darkened room!) have revealed is how much wiser is the common man than the supposed elite. A YouGov poll found that some 44 per cent of the public support delaying or dropping some of our net zero commitments against 38 per cent who say the Government should stick with its current climate change plans. See how woefully disconnected our leaders are from actual public opinion. They need to get out more, although not to Wales where the fastest form of transport is currently the pit pony.

Personally, I think the Climate Change Act should be repealed, and Britons freed from its crazy, punitive legal targets. But that’s for another time. Rishi Sunak has made an excellent start. Carry on, Prime Minister. We’re right behind you.

5 28 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 24, 2023 6:04 am

Good piece again by Alison Pearson….

Reply to  Hysteria
September 24, 2023 7:30 am

She’s one of the best opinion writers in the DT. Her pieces on Covid and the failure of the NHS in general are very good also. Her Planet Normal podcast with Liam Halligan kept me sane during Covid as they week-after-week took it apart and showed me I wasn’t mad for dissenting.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bil
September 24, 2023 9:20 am

More Goal Posts being moved. At least this time it is the correct Goal Posts and in the proper direction

September 24, 2023 6:35 am

The fuel efficiency of cars is less at 20 mph than at 30 mph, about 5% less. So the environmental effect of 20 mph speed limits is to increase CO2 emissions. Some super thinking going on here.

Reply to  Denis
September 24, 2023 7:30 am

Got any references for this?

Bill Toland
Reply to  mkelly
September 24, 2023 7:51 am

The most fuel efficient speed for cars is between 50 and 80 kilometers per hour which equates to 31 to 50 mph.

Reply to  Bill Toland
September 24, 2023 9:07 am


John Hultquist
Reply to  Bill Toland
September 24, 2023 9:13 am

From that source: “Avoid idling your vehicleTurn off your engine when you’re stopped for more than 60 seconds, except when in traffic. The average vehicle with a 3-litre engine wastes 300 millilitres (over 1 cup) of fuel for every 10 minutes it idles.”

I have a 2019 Ford 150. When I come to a complete stop, the engine shuts off until I take my foot off the brake. If the AC is turned on, the engine may start again. I suspect newer vehicles have other tricks.

Bryan A
Reply to  John Hultquist
September 24, 2023 9:26 am

I have a 2023 Nissan Rogue it has the same feature also 3 driving modes
Sport with flippers in the steering wheel to shift
Standard which shuts down with AC override
Eco which shuts down regardless of AC

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
September 24, 2023 9:27 am

Standard also puts a lot more pep in the gas pedal while Eco limits the pep

Reply to  John Hultquist
September 24, 2023 10:30 am

Whenever I rent a car in California I try not to stop to avoid that nonsense.

Reply to  Scissor
September 24, 2023 11:29 am

Sliding through a stop sign without coming to a full stop is called a California stop for a reason.

Reply to  MarkW
September 24, 2023 4:41 pm

When driving in California, it is apparent that drivers are exempt from coming to a full stop and using their turn signals. Yellow lights also mean you should speed up to get through a red light.

Reply to  John Hultquist
September 24, 2023 8:36 pm

I was riding with a friend of mine when he proudly pointed out that his engine shut off when he came to a stop (it was a Porsche SUV, I can’t remember the exact model). I said, “Damn, you need to take this thing to the shop, the engine dies every time you come to a stop!”

Reply to  Bill Toland
September 24, 2023 12:18 pm

That depends on gearing and engine design.

Northern Bear
Reply to  mkelly
September 24, 2023 8:02 am

I get about 40 mpg around town in my Skoda Octavia diesel 2 litre , but on motorways at 70 -80 mph about 64mpg

Reply to  Northern Bear
September 24, 2023 9:08 am

Diesel engines operate most efficiently at about 90% or the max RPM. At least that is what we were taught years ago.

Northern Bear
Reply to  mkelly
September 24, 2023 12:37 pm

At 80mph in sixth gear engine is running at2100 rpm, max revswould be about 4500 rpn

Reply to  Northern Bear
September 24, 2023 3:55 pm

Those would be Imperial Gallons?

John Hultquist
Reply to  mkelly
September 24, 2023 9:04 am

If you are a driver, check this idea for yourself.
First, check that just sitting in the auto with the motor running
is a waste of fuel. Be sure each speed is attained, that is, that you are not accelerating or decelerating as you test.
Vehicles will differ, so check several.

Neil Lock
Reply to  mkelly
September 24, 2023 11:06 am

If you have a trip computer in your car, you don’t need references. The higher the average speed, the lower the fuel consumption for mile. Even above 60mph.

Reply to  Neil Lock
September 24, 2023 11:31 am

My little Fiat is a bit boxy in profile. I get 50mph around town and 40mph on the highway.

Amos E. Stone
Reply to  MarkW
September 24, 2023 11:40 am

You slow down on the highway? Sorry, I know you meant mpg.

John Oliver
Reply to  MarkW
September 24, 2023 4:10 pm

What Fiat model and year engine? Just curious, I have had fun with alFiats over the years. Some models are a little tougher and durable than people think. As well as economical

Reply to  Neil Lock
September 24, 2023 12:21 pm

not for all cars. Current one may be engineered to that standard.

Reply to  Neil Lock
September 24, 2023 3:55 pm

You trust the trip computer?

Reply to  mkelly
September 24, 2023 11:27 am

I don’t know of any car that can shift into it’s highest gear at 20mph.
Even if it could, the car would be way down on the power curve.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
September 24, 2023 12:09 pm

In olden times it was called “lugging” the engine.

Reply to  Denis
September 24, 2023 7:38 am

Don’t be confused by a Telegraph article. The Wales speed limit change is not about climate change. The pollution it is meant to prevent is NOISE pollution. And the main reason is to to reduce accidents.

Why Ms Pearson is planning to drive to Tenby via residential streets is beyond me. I’d take the M4, which is obviously unaffected by this change.

Anyway, here is a link to the actual reasons for the 20mph speed limit. The Telegraph could have been honest but I guess they know the gullibility of their readership.

And here is the key text;

The evidence from around the world is very clear – decreasing speeds will reduce collisions, save lives and reduce injuries – helping to improve quality of life and make our streets and local communities safer for all.
A public health study estimated that the 20mph default speed limit could result – every year – in:

  • 40% fewer collisions
  • 6 to 10 lives saved
  • 1200 to 2000 people avoiding injury

The change will also:

  • make streets safer for playing, walking and cycling
  • encourage more people to walk, wheel or cycle
  • makes our communities safer
  • improve health and wellbeing
  • reduce noise pollution

Alan M
Reply to  MCourtney
September 24, 2023 8:04 am

Whilst I agree that the original idea for the reduction to 20mph is about reducing accidents (and we have the same for 1/4 mile through the centre of the village where I live), the video Ms Pearson refers to shows the guy claiming it will help “climate change”. And as a correspondent above mentions, cars are less efficient at 20mp so use more fuel, resulting in higher levels of emissions, so it’s counterproductive on the climate change front.

Bryan A
Reply to  Alan M
September 24, 2023 9:36 am

Limiting the speed to 0 will eliminate accidents all together

Reply to  Bryan A
September 24, 2023 9:47 am

Pedestrianisation is being adopted for many residential areas (especially outside of the commuting hours) but it’s not always practical.

In the UK, Norwich and Oxford are trialling it,

It doesnot add up
Reply to  Bryan A
September 24, 2023 11:18 am

But it will increase muggings….some fatal.

Bryan A
Reply to  It doesnot add up
September 24, 2023 1:14 pm

Iaaah hate those muggels

Reply to  Alan M
September 24, 2023 9:46 am

I’m glad you agree with the actual facts. But how could you not?

Having linked to the official Welsh Government website, and quoted it, everyone must agree. Because I am definitively correct and Ms Pearson has just found a strawman to bravely joust with.

It’s always amusing when a primary source is quoted and linked to but people downvote it anyway because they can’t handle the truth.
On the Guardian it’s linking to the IPCC that gets the rejections – they cannot handle any change from their comfortable narrative.
Here it’s linking to the official government statements as people cannot cope with a challenge to their small-state ideologies.

Neither show real scepticism.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MCourtney
September 24, 2023 12:18 pm

Note your propaganda outlet doesn’t link to the IPCC science that shows no increases in extreme weather patterns in over 120 years. Note your propaganda outlet doesn’t link to the UN IPCC CMIP6 CliSciFi models that show the non-existent tropical tropospheric hot spot. Note your propaganda outlet only links to UN IPCC political statements about boiling earth and Code Red, not its actual science.

Reply to  Dave Fair
September 24, 2023 4:03 pm

Er… That’s what I said.

I’ve been banned form commenting by the Guardian for pointing out what the IPCC says.

It’s easy to spot the mote in another’s eye.
That doesn’t affect the failings of the Telegraph.

Two households, both alike in dignity.
Which is not a lot.

Northern Bear
Reply to  MCourtney
September 24, 2023 8:06 am

Estimated study ! In other words pre determined gibberish .20 mph limits were tried in Portsmouth about 12 years ago and they actually had more accidents and injuries

Reply to  Northern Bear
September 24, 2023 11:34 am

In theory, what works in theory should work in practice. In practice, it often doesn’t.

Martin Brumby
Reply to  Northern Bear
September 24, 2023 12:15 pm

20 mph limits were rolled out in York in every residential side road a few years ago. At huge expense.

Including in small side roads where a stunt driver in a Ferrari would struggle to reach 20 mph.

This was successfully challenged in Court and many fines returned to the “speeder”.

Cost to Council Tax-payers? Enormous.

Number of Councillors found to have been acting ‘ultra vires’? Nil.

Number voted off at the next Council Election? Significant. But replacements just as daft.

Reply to  Northern Bear
September 24, 2023 1:50 pm

I was a coroner for nine years and I can say that I did not attend any accident caused by speed, there were a myriad of other causes but never speed.

Reply to  Nansar07
September 24, 2023 4:52 pm

The biggest cause of auto accident injury is unsafe lane changes. Higher speed causes more severity of injury due to momentum as it is the product of the square of velocity. But seatbelts and airbags reduce the occupant momentum before that sudden stop. That makes speeding tickets a government profit center because dead people do not pay fines.

Reply to  Nansar07
September 24, 2023 8:43 pm

I once took a “defensive driving course” (of course it was to get a ticket dismissed), the instructor told us, in his experience the leading cause of accidents is insufficient speed. The little old lady doing 45 on the interstate, certainly causes more unexpected brakelights and dodging than then fellow doing 74 in a 65.

Reply to  Northern Bear
September 24, 2023 1:51 pm

Down here in NSW we have 40km/hr (25mph) “school” zones that operate in the morning and afternoon on school days. Flashing lights and all to make sure you see the speed sign

Many residential areas are speed limited to 50km/h (about 32mph) and the rest to 60km/h (38mph)

More open arterial roads are 80 or 90 km/h

Highways 100 or 110 km/hr

I don’t recall any higher speed limits than 110km/h but I believe there may still by some “unlimited” roads in the outback.

More Soylent Green!
Reply to  MCourtney
September 24, 2023 9:03 am

Speed limits that are too low often increase accidents.

Reply to  More Soylent Green!
September 24, 2023 1:50 pm

Half the drivers are below average in driving skill, so having them on the road longer will increase the number of accidents. It’s just arithmetic.

Bryan A
Reply to  MCourtney
September 24, 2023 9:35 am

Concrete pedestrian walkways on the side of the road with raised gutters and teaching your children to Not play in the street also goes a long way. As do having paved roads wide enough to allow for the creation of bike lanes separate from the driving surface.
Apparently XR protesters never learned to Not play in the street and never on the highway.

It doesnot add up
Reply to  MCourtney
September 24, 2023 11:17 am

Keeping to 20mph entails a lower gear and higher engine revs – it really isn’t quieter. I think we should wait on some accident statistics before jumping to too many conclusions. The study that claims 20mph saves lives relies on the fact that a 30kph limit was widely applied in Spain at the end of 2019 – just in time for covid lockdowns to have a severe impact on traffic levels, which was of course the real factor. Accident rates in Spain have been going up again as traffic returns to more normal levels.

One thing I noticed driving our motorways was that 20 miles of speed restrictions at a needlessly slow 40mph through “roadworks” resulted in frequent tailgating shunts within the limits, and road rage collisions once the restriction was lifted. In fact, I guess DfT agreed – they lifted the limits to 50mph through “roadworks” (for “smart” motorways), and promised later to raise them again to 60mph through most sections.

Having driven through Cambridge a few months ago – which already has widespread 20mph limits on top of a tortuous one way system – it was plain that cycles and scooters and mopeds were completely ignoring the limits and the red lights, designed to impede progress by holding traffic for several minutes at each light for no other reason. The result was a distinct lowering of standards among all road users. It did not feel safer – and I used to cycle there extensively in the days when there were many more cycles in use than today.

Reply to  MCourtney
September 24, 2023 11:59 am

make streets safer for playing, walking and cycling
And there was me thinking the purpose of streets was to drive on. Should we now drive on the pavements?

Martin Brumby
Reply to  MCourtney
September 24, 2023 12:01 pm

Mike, I suggest the following:-

The statistics you quote are from the same genii who claim that 40,000 people per year die from air pollution, whilst unable to name anyone other than a little asthmatic, Caribbean girl who had the benefit of an activist-coroner and whose mother apparently hadn’t considered moving house away from an especially congested road junction. And where adult smokers / mould / DIY activity seems not to have been even measured.

It is quite clear that anyone driving at inappropriate speeds when (for example) kids are streaming out of school, should be treated very harshly by the justice system.

It is also clear that someone fined for driving at 21 mph in a 20 mph zone outside a school, at 03:00 am on an August Sunday morning would justifiably be grumpy.

There are other, much more effective, ways of dealing with loony speeders.

Interesting to also consider the notably few police accident reports that mention “excessive speed” being a significant issue, in the thankfully few deaths / injuries collisions with pedestrians.

More Soylent Green!
Reply to  Denis
September 24, 2023 9:02 am

Perhaps the real goal is to get people to stop driving altogether? Make driving and owning a vehicle inconvenient and impractical and people stop buying them?

If course that would reduce emissions. But it also takes away freedom.

Joseph Zorzin
September 24, 2023 6:52 am

“Personally, I think the Climate Change Act should be repealed, and Britons freed from its crazy, punitive legal targets.”

Doing that would show that the UK really is a great nation leading the world out of climate lunacy.

Neil Lock
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 24, 2023 11:11 am

Oh, and not just the climate change act, but also all the other tyrannies like ULEZ, that have been imposed on us against our wills without hard, proven evidence.

Reply to  Neil Lock
September 24, 2023 11:38 am

The left in general has little use of data. If the theory is beautiful enough, it must be true.
Asking for data just shows that you have no faith in government.

The Real Engineer
Reply to  MarkW
September 25, 2023 6:51 am

Does anyone, I doubt it?

September 24, 2023 7:03 am

Climate Change Act should be repealed

It should never have been enacted.

But it’s like the qu’ran – nobody dares to reform or revise it for obvious reasons and so it is with the green religion

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  strativarius
September 24, 2023 10:02 am

yuh, don’t even dare to challenge it (them) or OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!


September 24, 2023 7:38 am

In the oil shock of the 1970’s many things were done (right turn on red) to reduce fuel usage. One of the things told to consumers was if you are going to be sitting with car idling for a minute or longer shut the car off. We were told the cars use about the same amount of fuel to start as to idle for a minute.

I notice there are cars now that shut off at stop lights etc. Then start again, like golf carts, when you want to go. Have cars gotten so much better that the time difference has gone to zero?

Reply to  mkelly
September 24, 2023 7:46 am

My guess fuel injection is the big difference. You also get a bigger starter, which is a clue that this is not a good idea.

Robert Watt
Reply to  Mikeyj
September 24, 2023 8:26 am

On my diesel car the purpose of stop/start technology, in conjunction with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), is to reduce the emission of NOX gasses in towns and cities. It is not about fuel saving although this might occur to a small extent. Also, my car’s conventional starter motor is not involved in the automatic restarting of the engine when I move off after stopping at a traffic light. It has a supercapacitor which harvests electrical energy during normal running and this is used to power its motor/alternator which spins the engine via a ribbed ancillary drive belt to restart the car. The conventional starter operating via a toothed ring on the flywheel is only used when the car is started by pressing the START button, not by the automatic start/stop system.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Robert Watt
September 24, 2023 9:17 am

I mentioned my truck above. Now I will have to investigate how it works. Thanks for the info.

Paul Hurley
Reply to  mkelly
September 24, 2023 2:08 pm

My 2020 Kia has the ignition stop-start feature. It took me a while to get used to it, but I find it works well. The engine is ready to go in the time it takes to move my foot from the brake pedal to the gas pedal. The system has some “smarts” built in. The engine won’t stay off for too long, especially when the A/C is in use, and the engine won’t stop if the rear window defroster is in use. The car has a button to disable the stop-start for the current drive.

As mentioned below, this feature requires a beefier starter motor to accommodate the increased number of engine stars.

The Real Engineer
Reply to  mkelly
September 25, 2023 6:55 am

I wonder how long the battery will last? I have now changed one for a neighbour twice in about 4 years, because they die completely, suddenly, without warning. The special stop-start batteries are also very expensive, 2 to 3 times the standard cost. I doubt that the fuel saved would cost as much as the new batteries!

September 24, 2023 8:06 am

CO2 is plant food.
—Learn it;
——Love it;
———Release it!

Bryan A
Reply to  deguello13
September 24, 2023 9:37 am

Every 5 seconds daily…

Rud Istvan
September 24, 2023 8:24 am

Fun watching a crash test dummy crash.

September 24, 2023 8:26 am

You have to laugh.
They consult the ECIU describing it thus;
“…the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) – an independent climate change think tank.”
A think-tank set up by Richard Black after he left the BBC as environment correspondent!

It doesnot add up
Reply to  MrGrimNasty
September 24, 2023 11:23 am

Richard Black also works at EMBER, which is a sock puppet consultancy telling Ed Miliband that zero carbon electricity is possible by 2030: one of its directors is Byrony Worthington, authoress of the Climate Change Act.

September 24, 2023 8:31 am

Bloomberg’s green-energy research team estimates it will take $US 200 trillion to stop global warming by 2050 and calls that a bargain. 

Figuring that there are about 2 billion households, that is about $100,000 per household. Also figuring that 90% of the households in the world don’t have extra money, that would be about $1 million dollars for households in advanced nations or about $33,000 per household per year over 30 years to stop temperatures from rising 1 degree Celsius. 

That is completely unaffordable. Given the choice between having temperatures rise 1 degree or having $1 million dollars almost everybody would vote on having $1 million dollars.

The millionaires and billionaires have $208 trillion in wealth. That would cover it.
story tip

Peta of Newark
Reply to  scvblwxq
September 24, 2023 8:54 am

I can’t recall he exact number I got but it was about $300 Billion

Sufficient to fertilise all of Australia with pulverised Basalt (sourced locally) – enough to regrow the rainforest that was and should be there.

That would, even in the face of current emissions, pull 9ppm of CO₂ out of the atmosphere annually.

Plus, the amount of water retained in that forest would reverse the observed sea level rise – not least as Australia would cease being a significant source of the dust that is causing the sea to rise.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 24, 2023 11:41 am

I’m trying to figure out how you can have a rain forest without having rain.

Bryan A
Reply to  scvblwxq
September 24, 2023 9:59 am

Penalizing Millionaires and Billionaires will only serve to stop the creation of wealth.
Would you create the next Cell Phone or
Computer operating system or
Next Gen Rechargeable Battery or
Battery powered Net Engine or
Functioning Fusion Generator or
Autonomous flying car or
…name the next great advancement
If the government were to take literally everything from you at the next declared “Emergency”?

What if the Global 1% were insufficient?

Or the Global 5%
Or the Global 10% (Global 10% starts at $130,000 per year)
Or the Global 15% (Global 15% starts at $65,000 per year)

OK for thee but not for me???

Reply to  Bryan A
September 24, 2023 2:14 pm

The Bezos’ and Gates’ of the world provided services to people in exchange for money. Their customers paid them because they wanted the service, which had to be beneficial for them, or they wouldn’t have spent money on it. So taking rich productive people’s money actually makes society poorer.

Reply to  scvblwxq
September 24, 2023 5:48 pm

They used to say “a million here, a million there, and soon you’re talking about real money”. Now it’s a few trillion here, a few trillion there, who cares it’s only taxpayers’ money”.

John Hultquist
September 24, 2023 8:55 am

The paragraph beginning: “Where was Justin?” . . .

. . . is a literary masterpiece.

September 24, 2023 9:46 am

Corey Bernardi takes a trip on the River Murray-
Climate change alarmism is a ‘cult’ which logic cannot ‘cure’: Cory Bernardi (
But as he discovers the cult of climate is alive and well via the propaganda machine defying reason and observation he also needs to be careful he doesn’t overlook the great benefits of plastics at the same time albeit there are some negative environmental tradeoffs in everything we do.

John Oliver
September 24, 2023 4:32 pm

Just a note on automotive starter motors. Over all starter motors have gotten much smaller and lighter over the last 50 years significantly. The starter motor for my full size chevy express work vans 4.3 and 5.7 v6 and V8 engines are actually smaller and lighter than the one used in my 79 Datsun/ Nissan 210 econo box with 1.4 L 4 banger ( it got 48 mpg with 5 speed and ac on highway actually matching the sticker mpg specs. Loved that little car. No fuel inj Just a cute little carb.

September 24, 2023 5:17 pm

Here’s why hybrid leader Toyota has extremely long factory order books while BEVs are clogging up new car showrooms post Covid-
You’ll understand everything about Atkinson, Miller and Otto cycle engines after watching this video – YouTube

September 25, 2023 4:54 am

With regard to the Welsh speed limit I couldn’t resist posting this.
As for Boris’s reaction, he knows what he has to do if he wants his oats tonight.

September 25, 2023 12:58 pm

Personally, I think the Climate Change Act should be repealed”

Sadly, this can’t be done. The reason being, during the Brexit TCA, the EU entered a clause, that any legislation implemented before leaving, could not be repealed.

On which treacherous May, came back and quickly implemented the act.

And of course, our weak kneed politicians have to uphold it, so that they look good on the world stage.

Verified by MonsterInsights