Jordan Peterson speaks to Spectator editor Michael Gove about the ‘idiot blandishments of net zero’. He describes how setting a target at ‘zero’ dooms you to the futile pursuit of perfection, why Nigel Farage could be the answer to the preoccupation with ‘the climate apocalypse’, and whether Kemi Badenoch might put right some of the Tories’ less ‘conservative’ policies.
This interview will be archived in WUWT Climate TV, a collection of over six hundred videos, featuring new interviews and analysis, and covering dozens of media sources discussing, debating and analyzing the latest in climate science, climate politics, and energy policy, including topics concerning temperature, sea level, polar bears, ocean acidification, extreme weather, censorship, wild fires, and more.
Gove was a huge part of the Conservative ‘problem’.
Still is.
RIP The Spectator
This is a wonderful blast by Peterson, with Gove (part of the problem) looking very sheepish throughout.
“achieving net-zero liberals”…brilliant. Add to this net zero of AGW klimate kooks.
Gove was a sycophantic supporter of Greta Thunberg when he was in the Conservative government.
Gove now editor of the Spectator is the ultimate bad penny constantly turning up when you least expect him to be there.
He is a man with Marx based principles. “These are my principles, if you don’t like them I have loads of others” (Groucho Marx).
Jordan Peterson is the permanent thorn in the side of the globalist establishment. He is a plain speaking truth teller who is above their intellect and is beyond their ability to influence.
Long may he continue to bring rational thought to today’s dystopian political scene.
Gove’s Conservative Party had 14 years to right the wrongs introduced by Blair and Brown. During that time they did nothing to return the UK to the powerhouse of world influence it once was.
The Conservative PM Cameron claims his title was the ‘heir to Blair’ Theresa May his replacement introduced the Net Zero legislation onto the Statute Book by executive order appending it to the Climate Change Act 2008 introduced by Ed Miliband during Labour’s term in office.
Johnson May’s replacement promised to get Brexit done he did nothing of the sort. He simple got the term Brexit signed but all UK systems are subservient to the EU rules and regulations even our legal freedoms, i.e. no freedoms.. Johnson also continued the tolerance of uncontrolled migration reaching a figure of net 900+thousands in 2022/2023. He continued Net Zero with coal fired power stations literally blown up to prevent them ever being used again during his term in office.
That is how dire the Conservatives had become. They had morphed into a blue rosette wearing Labour Party.
Reform is growing at a staggering rate and will be the main political influence over the coming years with a real possibility of assuming government in 2029. Those of us with influence on these matters will be working to assist that outcome.
Net Zero legislation must be destroyed, for the sake of humanity.
Five sevenths of humanity doesn’t care about Net Zero.
Net Zero legislation needs to be destroyed for the sake of the Anglo-sphere. The rest of humanity is doing fine and will continue to thrive.
It will do even better if the Anglosphere isn’t being hampered by their governments.
Theresa May his replacement introduced the Net Zero legislation onto the Statute Book by executive order appending it to the Climate Change Act 2008
Not quite true, or at least misleading, and the real situation was worse, a lot worse, than this suggests. An arbitrary exercise of executive power without democratic scrutiny would have been at least comprehensible as a way the disaster might have happened. But this is not what happened, and its not possible under the UK Constitution (unwritten though that is).
What happened, it was an amendment to the Climate Change Act, and was passed in the normal way as a statutory instrument (a process which requires cross-party support). It was passed by a vote in the Lords, but in the Commons was passed without any objections after a 1.5 hour debate. If you can call it a debate. It was based on advice given by the Climate Change Committee, which is usually referred to as independent, but has a government appointed membership consisting of climate change obsessives.
The British disaster in energy policy is occurring with the full support of the entire political class both at the time it was embarked on, in the original Climate Change Act of 2008, introduced by Ed Miliband, and in this amendment to it. Plaid, SNP, Liberals, Conservatives and Labour all supported both the 2008 Act and the even more insane and pointless amendment.
Passing such a bill without any objections is a low point for British democracy – not for the institution itself, which has survived far worse, but for the credibility and competence of the entire current political establishment.
And the last point you make is correct. The inevitable result of this fiasco, and others on similar lines on other subjects, will be the empowerment of the only populist poilitical party in the UK with any credibility, which is Reform.
The only qualification one should make however is that the rise of Reform is not going to be what people think, hope and expect. Its not Farage and Tice one has to worry about with Reform. Its their successors.
What you need to reflect on, before applauding Reform unreservedly, is that under their successors the UK will still not have a written constitution, and that a party with the will and the requisite Commons majority can pass any legislation it wants on any subject. There are none of the constitutional safeguards the US has. If Reform gets in, Farage and Tice will be the first casualties, and then fasten your seat belts for what will come next.
It goes back to the Bill of Rights 1688, or maybe arguably even further. Parliamentary Sovereignty.
“the Freedom of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament”
As usual, perplexity puts it better than I would have:
This is indeed very different from the US system, where the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional. In the UK, once Parliament has passed a law, it is the law of the land, and courts must apply it.
So now think again about the successors of Farage and Tice…. They really can, if they can get the law through Parliament, repeal the Equalities Act and embark on preventive detention without trial.
“ In the UK, once Parliament has passed a law, it is the law of the land”
I think it’s even worse than that. If you dig a little deeper, you will find that these Parliamentary Acts are not the “law of the land” at all, but Bylaws passed by a Corporation doing business as a Government, or in other words the Law of the Sea – i.e. Admiralty Law – also sometimes known as Contract Law. Getting those contractual “laws” to apply to men and women living on the land without their written contractual consent involves a lot of tricks… and we don’t need to put up with it if we don’t want to.
By contrast, the actual Law of the Land, known as Common Law, consists of all jury court decisions written since the Magna Carta. These are the laws made by We The People to govern ourselves by, as opposed to the bylaws made by corporations. Most juries of course have no idea they are writing new laws when they issue decisions, so I think it would also be fair to say that any jury decision that was made by a jury not duly informed of the effect of their actions would be the result of deception and hence null and void. But that’s a second layer of corruption, and we have to remove the top layer first.
Thank you for the correction to procedure used to arrive at our UK Net Zero economic collapse.
The important point is the Tories had 14 years to reset the lunacy the Labour and LibDems championed but did the exact opposite. The term Uniparty has been adopted to describe very accurately, the hand in glove agreement that exists among the traditional Labour, Conservative and LibDem politicians in Westminster. I just hope Reform have enough of the economy still functioning in four years time to be able to rekindle the sectors now being destroyed at pace and gleefully by Labour..
Yes, indeed, Uniparty is right. And the other thing is the gap between the attitudes and values of the political class in all parties and those of the electorate. I cannot recall a time in the UK when there was such a disconnection.
The point I was making about procedure was this. Parliament passed without a vote and without any real scrutiny a completely idiotic and pointless measure, hugely expensive, and with enormous social and economic consequences. Without even a vote!
Not a policy which has ever been spelled out to the voters, and one which, were it, they would almost certainly dissent from. As they do from the decolonization and gender nonsense.
This is a real sign of the disconnect. Its like the political class are living in a different country. Do they even know how voters feel?
I agree with you that this unanimity of the political class and their alienation from the public leaves voters with only one alternative, Reform. And I agree with you that they will take it.
Where I have some reservations is what that will lead to. But we will almost certainly find that out together!
Your knowledge of the British parliamentary system is impressive. I find it interesting that you see an alienated and out of touch political class.
Ramming legislation through for idealogical reasons could never happen if MPs were independent. They would also be more in tune with their electorate because only their electorate can appoint them. All of the problems facing Britain today can be laid at the feet of political parties of all hues for which the whole populous is responsible. So, therein lies the solution.
You have completely missed the point, as it bears on British parliamentary democracy.
The Climate Change Act and the subsequent amendment did not owe their introduction and passage to the existence of parties. It was not “rammed through” at all. The depressing fact is, there was such a consensus in both Commons and Lords that it would have passed almost unanimously in the Commons and on landslide majority in the Lords had both houses consisted entirely of independents.
There may be problems from political parties in British democracy. But in this case the problem was (and is) that there is an overwhelming and irrational consensus among MPs on a policy with enormous social and economic consequences. But this consensus is quite different from the view of the population as a whole.
It makes no difference if this consensus is among a body of representatives who group themselves into political parties, or if they all call themselves independent. In either case the diagnosis is that this is a memorable instance of the collective hysterias to which our species is prone.
This divergence, between the political class and the public, which I called alienation, seems to be occurring on a number of issues in the UK – race, gender, immigration, probably education, increasingly health policy. Issues which are usually grouped together under the name ‘woke’.
There are two questions this situation gives rise to. One, what will the consequences be? I agree with Rod Evans that the most likely outcome is a continued rise in the popularity of Reform, and there is some prospect of a Reform landslide at the next election, if it continues.
The second question is how it has happened. Britain has had political parties in the recognizably modern form since at least the early 1700’s, perhaps, arguably, since the late 17c and the reign of Queen Anne. They emerged spontaneously from the Revolution of 1688, which established British parliamentary democracy in its present form. But through this 300+ year history there has rarely if ever been the sort of fundamental divergence, coupled with the political class consensus, on cultural and policy issues that we are seeing now.
Why has it happened? I don’t know the answer to this, but I know it has nothing to do with the existence of political parties in the UK.
On your point about parties in general, I would point out that there is no example in the world of representative government without parties. The UK form emerged as soon as parliamentary democracy was established. But look across the Channel. As soon as the Estates General were called in France, parties emerged. The subsequent madness was not due to their emergence or existence. It too was one of these murderous hysterical outbursts that are driven by great waves of collective feeling. Similarly in the Soviet revolution.
The origin of parties is that people need to form groups to organize effective action, and they do so around issues on which they agree. But whether they have done that or not, they will still be liable to irrational impulses of the kind we see in the Climate Change Act and its subesquent amendment. Or in the bloody hysteria of Thermidor.
I accept that political parties in one form or another have dominated democracies the world over virtually since democracy emerged. That alone does not vindicate them. I advocate that the evolution of democracy is not complete and will not be until the voters purge parties from it.
Yes. there is a certain type of person that needs to form groups to serve as vehicles for their ambition, be that good or bad. My contention is that this does not serve people well as they are inevitably played to be pawns and victims.
I understand that only a broad movement in the consciences of the voter can overturn this but this is a feature not a bug.
If you weigh the elemental goodness of man against the history of man`s inhumanity toward his fellows you will see that something is very wrong. I contend that the evil flaw can be defeated by not allowing it to gel into power groups.
That is the most cynical I have seen Jordon Peterson. He appears close to despair.
Mr Gove later told Miss Thunberg she had been heard and admitted “we have not done nearly enough”. He said: “Suddenly in the past few years it has become inescapable that we have to act.
“The time to act is now, the challenge could not be clearer, Greta you have been heard.”
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-04-23/gove-admits-government-must-act-as-climate-change-protesters-reach-parliament
Happy 22nd birthday to Greta. I hope she doesn’t smoke too much weed.
Yes, Gove is a total flake, though a very energetic and able one, who should never have been left to make up his own mind about any policy issue. Tell him to take a hill, and he will die trying. But never ask such a man which hill to take. God help the Spectator.
NET ZERO IS physically and Economically IMPOSSIBLE.
Anyone that supports “Net Zero” obviously graduated from High school and/or college with less than an eighth grade proficiency of mathematics. And definitely not qualified for Mensa membership.
The global use of fossil fuels for Energy [ignoring their use for plastic, fertilizer, tar used for pavement, etc, is approximately 600 Quadrillion BTUs.
Not only that, but because China, India and several other Asian countries continue with coal, apace…
1… there will be net zero effect on atmospheric CO2.. (maybe an increase if UK ca still afford to import “stuff”)
2… The only thing that will happen will be the complete collapse of the UK economy, back to the days of King Arthur
How many citizens will be able to escape !!
From the Telegraph today, notes without comment:
Reform UK is just six points away from becoming the biggest party in parliament, an election predictor has found.
Nigel Farage’s insurgent party could leapfrog both the Conservatives and Labour by gaining a few more percentage points of support, according to the analysis by polling firm Electoral Calculus.
If the party reached 28 per cent of the popular vote at an election, it would likely become the largest force in the House of Commons, though short of an overall majority.
On current polling trends, Reform would reach this threshold within six months if it continues to pick up support at the current rate.
With 31 per cent of the vote, Reform would win a majority, making Mr Farage prime minister.
The prediction comes as support collapsed for the Labour Party and Sir Keir Starmer experienced a dramatic slump in his personal popularity.
Labour won a landslide of seats at the general election in July with under 34 per cent of the popular vote.
Play with predictions yourself here:
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html
I mean he’s right but why do we give a fig what Jordan Peterson said? 😂
Kemi Badenoch grew up in a privileged Nigerian family. She now thinks she is the right person to streer the United Kingdom down a new path to recovery and prosperity. Strangely, I have not read of her uttering a word about any of the terrible problems in Nigeria. Being a black anchor baby in England does not qualify her to be a good prime minister of the UK. Her silence about suffering Nigerians is telling. Will she do anything about the flood of Muslims into the UK and threat they pose or about all the Sharia courts in the UK or the crime and atrocities they are responsible for?
“Christians in Nigeria continue to be terrorised with devastating impunity by Islamic militants and armed ‘bandits’ – particularly in the north and central regions of the country. The attacks are often brutal in nature and can involve destruction of properties, abductions for ransom, sexual violence and death.”
Just after midnight on 15 May 2023, his village in central Nigeria was attacked by Fulani militants. “All I could see were burnt houses around,” he remembers. “I searched to see if I could find my wife or children – only to find their lifeless bodies.
Open Doors UK
Last year 2023, on Christmas Eve, Gideon’s wife and five children were killed when Fulani Islamists attacked his village in Nigeria. More than 200 Christians were killed in raids on various villages that day.
Release International
What has any of this to do with the supposed threats of climate change?
Notice how the same people, who push the Climate Armageddon and its expected threat to the future of mankind, are stunningly silent about not merely threats but actual death and destruction at the hands of Islamists. Having the floodgates open for people to enter a country that does not share their culture and values, is a real existential threat not climate change.