From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
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.
Good piece again by Alison Pearson….
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.
More Goal Posts being moved. At least this time it is the correct Goal Posts and in the proper direction
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.
Got any references for this?
The most fuel efficient speed for cars is between 50 and 80 kilometers per hour which equates to 31 to 50 mph.
https://natural-resources.canada.ca/energy-efficiency/transportation-alternative-fuels/personal-vehicles/fuel-efficient-driving-techniques/21038
Thanks.
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.
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
Standard also puts a lot more pep in the gas pedal while Eco limits the pep
Whenever I rent a car in California I try not to stop to avoid that nonsense.
Sliding through a stop sign without coming to a full stop is called a California stop for a reason.
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.
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!”
That depends on gearing and engine design.
I get about 40 mpg around town in my Skoda Octavia diesel 2 litre , but on motorways at 70 -80 mph about 64mpg
Diesel engines operate most efficiently at about 90% or the max RPM. At least that is what we were taught years ago.
At 80mph in sixth gear engine is running at2100 rpm, max revswould be about 4500 rpn
Those would be Imperial Gallons?
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.
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.
My little Fiat is a bit boxy in profile. I get 50mph around town and 40mph on the highway.
You slow down on the highway? Sorry, I know you meant mpg.
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
not for all cars. Current one may be engineered to that standard.
You trust the trip computer?
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.
In olden times it was called “lugging” the engine.
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:
The change will also:
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.
Limiting the speed to 0 will eliminate accidents all together
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,
But it will increase muggings….some fatal.
Iaaah hate those muggels
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.
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.
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.
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
In theory, what works in theory should work in practice. In practice, it often doesn’t.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Speed limits that are too low often increase accidents.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Does anyone, I doubt it?
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
yuh, don’t even dare to challenge it (them) or OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!
persuasive!
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?
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.
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.
I mentioned my truck above. Now I will have to investigate how it works. Thanks for the info.
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.
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!
CO2 is plant food.
—Learn it;
——Love it;
———Release it!
Every 5 seconds daily…
Fun watching a crash test dummy crash.
You have to laugh.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66867679
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!
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.
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.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-05/-200-trillion-is-needed-to-stop-global-warming-that-s-a-bargain#xj4y7vzkg
story tip
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.
I’m trying to figure out how you can have a rain forest without having rain.
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???
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.
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”.
The paragraph beginning: “Where was Justin?” . . .
. . . is a literary masterpiece.
Corey Bernardi takes a trip on the River Murray-
Climate change alarmism is a ‘cult’ which logic cannot ‘cure’: Cory Bernardi (msn.com)
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.
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.
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
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.
“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.