By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Bill McAuley, an engineer alumnus of Imperial College, London, mentions the following petition on the UK Parliament’s website. If the petition gains 100,000 signatures, Parliament will have to debate it. Brits only can sign the petition by following the link below:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/657353
The bureaucrats – without any justification in law – are using the forthcoming General Election as a pretext to cut off the petition at midnight on 29 May, so you will need to get your vote registered online at once.
The petition, refers to the World Climate Declaration organized by CLINTEL, supported by some 1600 scientists and researchers, including Nobel Laureates. The organizer says:
“We believe the Climate Change Act 2008 and related Net Zero targets are both now in effect based on just one side of a two-sided scientific debate, as we do not consider there to be a scientific consensus on the hypothesis of human emissions causing climate change. We consider that one side only of a two-sided scientific debate is not an acceptable basis for significant legislation that could have major impacts on the UK’s economy and citizens. We want the issue of Climate Change to be reconsidered from scratch based on views and evidence from all sides.”
The now-collapsed Government’s response is as follows –
The Government’ “Department for Energy and Net Zero” adds:
“The Government’s policy to support ambitious action on climate change reflects the mainstream scientific consensus and thousands of studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments. The IPCC is the authoritative source of information on climate science. The IPCC has established that human influence has warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years. This warming of the climate is attributed to the build-up of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel combustion, cement manufacture and deforestation. The evidence for this is set out in chapters 2 and 3 of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Working Group 1 report.
“As discussed in chapter 4 of the above report, if the CO2 concentration continues to rise unchecked the world could face a global surface temperature rise of about 3°C or more above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century. The serious consequences of this for human societies and ecosystems are set out in the IPCC Working Group report on impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation.
“The Prime Minister has reiterated that net zero is a priority for this Government. The UK is the first major economy to halve its emissions – having cut them by around 53% between 1990 and 2023, while also growing its economy by around 80%. More than ever, we are determined to adopt a fair and pragmatic approach to net zero that minimises the burdens on working people. The measures announced by the Prime Minister on 20 September 2023 (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-net-zero-20-september-2023) will help avoid imposing significant costs on families.
“The Government understands the importance of affordable energy bills for households and businesses and is focussed on delivering for energy consumers. We are taking a comprehensive approach to bring down future bills. This includes reforming retail markets to be more effective for consumers through the Review of Electricity Market Arrangements (REMA) Programme. We are also investing across the energy system and supporting the progress of new technologies to deliver a smarter energy system, and energy efficiency to reduce costs for all consumers.
“The costs of global inaction to tackle climate change significantly outweigh the costs of action. Indeed, delaying action will only put future generations at risk. The Net Zero “Review by HM Treasury, published alongside the Net Zero Strategy in October 2021, provided an analysis of the costs and benefits of the transition, found here (http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/net-zero-review-final-report). As the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) noted in its July 2021 Fiscal Risks Report (https://obr.uk/frs/fiscal-risks-report-july-2021/), “the costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero”.
“Government policy and spending ambitions will support up to 480,000 green jobs in 2030. We have a clear strategy to boost UK industry and reach net zero by 2050 – backed by £300 billion in public and private low carbon investment between 2010 and 2023, with a further £100 billion of private investment expected by 2030. Since September alone companies have announced plans for £30bn of new investment across the energy sector, including to advance green technologies and support green industries of the future.
“The public will play a key role in the net zero transition. A significant proportion of the emission reductions will require the public to make green choices and the UK government will be supporting the consumers all the way. Our priority is making green choices significantly easier, clearer and more affordable, and working with industry to remove barriers.
“The DESNZ Public Attitudes Tracker shows that people are willing to make green choices. In Summer 2023, a large majority (74%) agreed that they could make changes that would help reduce climate change. When shown a list of behaviours related to reducing climate change, almost all people (98%), said that they did at least one of these in their everyday life. The most recent wave of the DESNZ Public Attitudes Tracker shows that 80% of people in the UK are either fairly concerned or very concerned about climate change and 62% of the public consider climate change and the environment to be one of the most important issues facing the UK (ONS 14-25th February 2024)
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/desnz-public-attitudes-tracker-winter-2023
“The Climate Change Act requires that we publish the level of the Carbon Budget 7 twelve years before the period to allow policy makers, businesses, and individuals to prepare. The statutory deadline for setting the Seventh Carbon Budget is June 2026. In recent correspondence with the Environmental Audit Committee, the Secretary of State for DESNZ stated her support for proper democratic consideration of carbon budgets. We have committed to additional Parliamentary scrutiny for Carbon Budget 7, which is in line with this government’s commitment to delivering on these targets in a way that brings people with us and ensures democratic debate about the way we get there.”
In the General Election on July 4, the third-largest party – Reform – is the only one committed to bringing the climate-change nonsense to an end.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So the UK government’s attitude is, effectively, “Do as we say, not do as we do.”
Since 1660
Its more like, stop making sense, we are going to do this no matter what anyone says and no matter how they vote. You can vote Conservative in which case we will do 90% of it by 2035, or you can vote Labour, in which case we will do 100% of it by 2030. And if you don’t like it, you can always move.
If voting made a difference to the way the country is run … they wouldn’t allow us to vote !!
“Vote often”
Actually, many students can [and do] vote twice. Depending on when an election is held a student can vote in their university city and then again in their home town. Not necessarily in that order.
Lots of things have been thrown into the long grass – for now.
My vote? None of the above… I’d happily shoot them, though.
Here’s a still from the opening election campaign video for Mr Ed[stone] Miliband – which was, er, taken down again.
https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1mRXmy.img?w=768&h=480&m=6
I forgot to mention; a green job is a redundancy.
The title from the video was actually better researched and double-checked than the NetZero plan!
Not just students. People with second homes in a different constituency can be on more than one Register of Electors. But just to clarify, it is illegal to vote more than once. If you vote in your home constituency it would be illegal to vote in your university constituency. Very difficult to check up on, of course.
You notice the usual:
As the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) noted in its July 2021 Fiscal Risks Report (https://obr.uk/frs/fiscal-risks-report-july-2021/), “the costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero”.
For who? What would the costs for the UK be of failing to get its emissions down to net zero? There would be no costs. It would not make any difference to climate change.
The totally irrational assumption among the British political and media establishment is that a UK Net Zero will have some effect on ‘bringing climate change under control’.
It will not, it cannot, the UK only does a bit over 1% of global emissions, and no-one is looking to it for an example. It is like Tuvalu seeking to combat sea level rise by reducing its emissions. Nothing the UK does will have the slightest effect on the global climate.
They have completely lost touch with reality. Their plans for getting to net zero in electricity generation won’t stand even a cursory investigation. They are basically a recipe for dismantling the electricity grid. And even were the UK to vanish from the planet, global CO2 emissions would continue unchanged.
You have to assume every govt body is brooked and lying to you, no matter who is in power. But then we know that the winner of the GE is not the one in power, but uber-bodies such as the WEF. The sooner these bodies are declared as terrorist organisations, the better. We must be rid of them.
Excellent point. Even the biggest climate clown in the U.S., John Kerry, admitted that the U.S. could go to zero and not be enough to stop climate change.
“The fact is that even if every single American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes – if we each planted a dozen trees – if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions – guess what? That still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world. If all the industrialized nations went down to zero emissions – remember what I just said – all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions, it wouldn’t be enough – not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.”-John Kerry
“the costs of failing to get climate change under control”
“Under control”. Now that is funny.
The OBR never gets anything right and yet Labour’s prospective chancellor Reeves wants to give them power over all government budgets.
So SHE dodges responsibility.
And WE can’t sack the OBR …
Odd, that.
Auto
For whom.
Folks should read and quote Ben Pile’s takedown of the govt’s response to the Net Zero debate:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/05/26/the-governments-noilerplate-reply-to-net-zero-criticism/
The IPCC is *NOT* the gold standard of, or “authoritative source of information on” climate science. far from it. They are a *POLITICAL* body, run by govts, and decide the ‘science’ *AFTER* their Summary for Policymakers document has been released, i.e. before the scientific reports are released – to give them time to change them. They are basically a load of crooks and conmen.
Excellent point.
When they say, “the IPCC is the authoritative source of information on climate science” it sounds like they believe it. The IPCC is no such thing—and that’s not a secret.
How can anyone be allowed to work in the Department for Energy and Net Zero without being familiar with the IPCC’s actual terms of reference? It was set up by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to build the case for the AGW conjecture. Not only does the IPCC have no role in testing the conjecture, doing so would be contrary to its terms of reference.
“As discussed in chapter 4 of the above report, if the CO2 concentration continues to rise unchecked the world could face a global surface temperature rise of about 3°C or more above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century. The serious consequences of this for human societies and ecosystems are set out in the IPCC Working Group report on impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation.”
The net result of this warming…
“The aggregate mortality rate declined by 98%, largely due to decreased mortality in three main areas: Deaths and death rates from droughts, which were responsible for approximately 60% of cumulative deaths due to extreme weather events from 1900–2010, are more than 99.9% lower than in the 1920s.”
The trouble is, it will make no difference no matter how many signatures the petition gets. Labour current plans are net zero in electricity generation by 2030. In that year they intend to have
35 GW onshore (up from about 13.5GW today)
60 GW offshore (up from about 16.5GW today)
50 GW solar (up from about 15GW today)
_________
145 GW total
This to supply peak demand of 45GW at present, or more like 55-60 in 2030 after you factor in heat pumps and EVs.
The Conservatives are planning to get to the same state but only by 2035, with slightly less total commitment to net zero, 90% rather than 100%.
So sign all the petitions you want, vote any way you want, it will make no difference. Even if its debated in the Commons, nothing will change. They have twice voted through Net Zero, the first time almost unanimously, the second time strengthening its provisions without even a debate.
Look at Gridwatch to get an accurate view of wind intermittency. The amount of generation either party intends to install is impossible, but worse than that, even did they get this much in, it would not meet demand.
The entire political class of the UK is determined to take the country over a cliff, and they are telling themselves and the country that this is urgently required to control climate change. And that it actually will do that. And there is nothing anyone can do to change their minds.
A petition only guarantees a debate.
That is all and that is all it ever will do. Call it a pressure relief valve. Next….
Exactly, waste of time.
Having signed for the immigration compact and WHO power grab petitions, and read the responses, you might as well scream at the devil. They hold us in utter contempt.
No, rehearsal for the real thing.
Is that 80% inflation adjusted? Seems unrealistic.
Cut emissions 53%?? How much of that really is just exporting industries which are emitting elsewhere?
Rewording your last question: what would growth have been if we hadn’t expended vast efforts to cut emissions by around 53%?
The Prime Minister is an idiot, as is the Leader of the Opposition (most likely the next PM). Indeed, there is no shortage of idiocy amongst MPs and amongst the civil service. Things can only get worse.
Don’t assume idiocy when malice is a better explanation.
mal-idiocy?
Looking For Their Lost Keys
Tony Heller says Asia is building 1,000 new coal power plants.
“The IPCC has established that human influence has warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years.”
Rubbish. They have “established” no such thing.
“This warming of the climate is attributed to the build-up of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel combustion, cement manufacture and deforestation.”
That attribution has been unsound all along. How is that? Please see this time-lapse video about energy conversion in the general circulation. Please read the full explanation in the description text.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
Even if it presently seems hopeless, may our friends the Brits push back hard and overcome the multi-party lunacy that grips your country right now.
Signed. I am campaign manager for my local Reform Party UK candidate (he is up against Jeremy Hunt, no less!), and I am also one of those who has been working away over the last years – with some success – trying to get the party to back away from Net Zero, and thus provide a protest outlet that might have some effect.
Just make up a bunch of signs that say “NET ZERO HARMS PALESTINIANS!!!”
Remember, Mauna Loa data shows that the Covid lockdowns were actions that had no discernible effect on atmospheric CO2.
Stop the Indian railways. Close China’s factories. Empty the roads of western commuters. Not enough to make a difference.
Net Zero is politically and diplomatically impossible. But if it was achieved, it would be far worse than any expected climate change.
Imagine Covid lockdowns year after year, forever.
The IPCC’s AR Summaries for Policy makers is agreed line by line by participating government representatives including ours.
Done.
However I suspect we are all doomed. Politicians don’t do science, in fact I’m not sure they do economics either. They seem pretty good at groping litte boys or other peoples wives though.
“Politicians don’t do science.” Indeed. Perhaps we should, for the sake of “affirmative action,” agitate for a rule that at least 50% of any political party’s candidates must have degree level qualifications in mathematics or in a “hard” science? 🙂
The most effective thing the British electorate can do is spoil their ballot paper on 04 July.
The number of spoiled ballots is announced with the votes for the candidates, so if spoiled ballots far exceeds valid ballots cast, it should present a constitutional crisis.
In other words, turn it into a binary referendum – Yes or No – by simple majority, rather than voting in nitwits by plurality.
The next UK GE is on July 4th. How delightful, from an American standpoint.
The most effective thing the British electorate can do is spoil their ballot paper on 04 July.
By writing …
None of the above.
or
None are worthy to represent me.
All ‘spoilt ballot papers’ are scrutinized several times, so use it to get the message across, that we don’t trust politicians anymore;
don’t be tempted to scribble obscenities.
Suppose the government ‘closes’ the petition before the necessary signatures are applied. Would it not be possible, once the new parliament is enthroned, to start over and create a new petition demanding a public debate? I’m not politically savvy, but I would write a petition that stresses scientists from both sides must be given equal time to explain actual evidence, not reference to authority, and that some final debate decision must be made based on the preponderance of the evidence presented in the debate, not based on any supposed consensus.
I would say that presentation of any ideological position for or against in the petition itself be minimal, but perhaps some there could be mention of the fact that new evidence and understandings of the last decade lead to significant questions about the probable results of the current policy. Or, presentation of the fact that even if AWG rasing temperatures is true, the spending of many hundreds of billions of British £ will, according to any method of reckoning the results, be less than can be measured, but that so many other problems (list) could be ameliorated were the money put to other uses including being left in the hands of the people earning it. And that virtually all of the UK reductions are mirror imaged by increases outside it borders that are necessary to support UK actions.
A long way to go. When I signed (today) there were only 13.497 signatures.
As for Reform being the third largest party, let’s wait to see the outcome of the General Election. The claim that Reform is the third-largest party is based on opinion polls, not actual votes. But we can be very sure that when the votes are counted, Reform will be way behind lots of other parties in terms of seats in the House of Commons. Reform will be lucky if it wins a single seat.
Yeah, well, petitions, Net Zero, IPCC… who cares? Climate change act blah blah blah. Utterly irrelevant.
The only thing that matters is that you don’t vote for the fekkin Tories!
If you do, or intend to, or take issue with my perspective, then you are an utter moron, beneath contempt and I will not debate you. Go away and stop breathing through your mouth.
The only valid way to impress on you how wrong you are would be a 2×4 to the head, repeatedly.
Vote anyone but Conservative!
Vote anyone but Trump! Lock him up!