The politics of COP 26

The 26th COP conference to save the planet takes place in early November. Like its forbears they tell us this is the last chance and that much is riding on the results. Clearly they are right that as the previous conferences have not agreed sufficient action to even begin reducing the total carbon dioxide produced in many places nor to start to cut the total amount of fossil fuel burned around the globe  this conference needs to be more successful than past ones to wean the world off fossil fuels as they wish.  World oil demand at 85 m barrels a day in 2006 is forecast to exceed 100m barrels a day again as world recovery from the pandemic continues, and to stay there for the next decade.  As the Conference approaches we are told that it will  be an extremely difficult task to get an Agreement. I would be surprised if it is allowed to break  up without one. I would also  be surprised if it is the last such conference, declaring job done. In practice the world is nowhere near getting to net zero any time soon all the time China, India, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh and other heavily populated countries see the need to burn more coal, oil and gas to grow.

The UK as joint chair with Italy has set out four crucial areas to get agreement – coal, cars, cash and trees. They will  need to negotiate the question of grants and loans from the rich countries to the lower income countries, as they are making this an essential part of co-operating with the general green revolution. A recent meeting of the 20 country strong Like Minded Developing countries (includes China, Saudi, Pakistan, Malaysia, Bangladesh) issued a tough communique saying the advanced countries as a whole needed to cut their carbon output more quickly as they had put plenty of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere during their industrialisation. The rich countries needed to  be tolerant of the developing world’s need to grow using fossil fuels, and to offer far more financial support for green transition by them. They pointed out that many developed countries had failed to make their full contribution of cash under the Paris promises, and had not met their own carbon dioxide reduction promises either.

It seems likely the Conference will have to proceed without either President Xi, or President Putin being present. China is by far and away the largest producer of carbon dioxide, at 28% of the world total, and Russia is in fifth  place at 4.5%. It now seems likely Prime Minister Modi of India, in fourth  place with 7%, will attend but it is unlikely he will be able to pledge cuts in Indian use of fossil fuels and will understandably want more financial support. China and Russia will send delegations and will offer national plans of sorts, but they will fall far short of what green campaigners would expect. There is unlikely to be an early phase out of coal by emerging countries, with China aggressively adding coal mines and coal power stations to her energy mix.

It will  be easier to agree more trees, though difficult issues remain in parts of Latin America and Asia over cutting down forests to grow crops and graze cattle. Everyone will  be sympathetic about electric cars.

The central Agreement will therefore rest on further pledges of progress from the world’s second and third largest emitters, the USA and EU. The UK will assist as the one larger  advanced country that has already done the most to cut its own carbon dioxide output. Getting a better commitment from Germany to cut out coal would help them. There are rumours that a possible new coalition government there might want to bring forward the elimination of coal from 2038 to 2030. The EU will doubtless find it more difficult to get an improved commitment from Poland, another large coal user.

Without larger and faster contributions from the first, fourth and fifth largest producers of CO2 in the world it is going to take more such conferences to chart a reliable path to net zero for the world.

223 Comments

  1. turboterrier
    October 23, 2021

    More trees? Latin America and Asia cutting down trees for food and grazing.
    In the UK we are cutting down forests to grow wind turbines!!!
    It could be argued that too much land is being taken out of use for renewables, trees, road and energy infrastructure and building more homes and all the while the growing population needs feeding. Has aÄșl of this really been thought through?

    1. Lifelogic
      October 23, 2021

      Well if you really want to cut down on CO2 you would cut down all the mature trees use the wood for building (or bury it) and let new growing trees take their place (then later repeat). But they never say this as chopping mature trees down would not be very popular. Mature trees rarely absorb much more carbon than they and their debris give off as it decays or is eaten by insects, fungi and animals.

      Also a new EV almost always creates more C02 in its manufacture (of car and battery) than it will ever save over its useful life time (plus we do not have zero CO2 Electricity to charge it with anyway.

      As they are not doing one and are encouraging the building of new EVs (with tax bribes, lower congestion charges and grants) we can only assume they are not remotely concerned about CO2 (or they are total idiots perhaps?).

      1. Everhopeful
        October 23, 2021

        Light on something
a hat, a window
make it a thing and then 

        TAX THE A*SE off it.
        A “poisonous” gas might serve
..

        1. Timaction
          October 23, 2021

          CO2 is a naturally occurring gas that feeds plants, oceans and is a trace gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. There has been no global warming so they changed the name to climate change. It is a religious belief, not science. Lots of contrary views not allowed by the politicians or MSM. No funding and isolation for those opposed to this. Everyone agrees with green environment issues and that fossil fuels are finite. Stop the guilt trips on our historical use and dont send us back to the stone age, whilst bankrupting us in the process. Carrie on Boris no one out of your bubble believes you anymore.

          1. Donna
            October 23, 2021

            Correct. It’s just a means by which the UN can get Western Governments to transfer even more taxpayers’ money to corrupt administrations in the 3rd world without resulting in, they hope, a tremendous backlash.

            It is achieved by making it a CONsensus issue – and therefore above democratic control. As they managed with EU membership for so long.

          2. Fedupsoutherner
            October 23, 2021

            Very clever as climate change covers EVERYTHING eventuality. Drought ,rain, snow, sun, storms, fog etc No need for any other phrase. It encapsulates their make believe, money grabbing world perfectly.

          3. DennisA
            October 24, 2021

            It has been said that Climate funding is about taking money from the poor in rich countries and giving it to the rich in poor countries.

      2. Narrow Shoulders
        October 23, 2021

        Also a new EV almost always creates more C02 in its manufacture (of car and battery) than it will ever save over its useful life time (plus we do not have zero CO2 Electricity to charge it with anyway.

        Quite if these eco-dictators and our politicians were really concerned about carbon output they would be campaigning for a make do and mend culture rather than a replacement culture. Screw the economy in a different but more conservationist way

        1. Lifelogic
          October 23, 2021

          Indeed make do and men and wear an extra jumper!

          1. DennisA
            October 24, 2021

            John Humphries (BBC) has suggested that the Government should provide thermal vests for everyone, but if CO2 is warming the world, why would we need them?

        2. Nota#
          October 23, 2021

          @Narrow Shoulders +1, Everyone but the PM knows that but the preoccupation with the ‘virtue signaling’ gesture wont allow it to be spoken of.

        3. kb
          October 23, 2021

          This is a myth. An EV pays back its manufacturing CO2 in only a few years. The equivalent mpg is over 150.
          Still think there are going to be problems charging up 36 million of the things from windmills though.

          1. Lifelogic
            October 24, 2021

            Nonsense an average electric car might only use about 50KW Hours of electricity in its life time (most are used as low mileage cars and most of this will probably be generated from Gas or Coal anyway). Do you really thing a ÂŁ40,000 EV uses less than this amount of energy to manufacture all the materials, car and battery. Plus the battery decays quite rapidly and often needs replacing.

          2. Lifelogic
            October 24, 2021

            I meant (50k) or 50,000 KWH only about ÂŁ1,500 of electricity by value.

      3. Lifelogic
        October 23, 2021

        Good to see the excellent David Starkey interview with Nigel Farage (talking pints) just now now on youtube. Not so good listening to Mevyn Bragg’s rather potty daughter on “Thought for the Day” Radio 4 on climate alarmism I think, but all the others that the BBC use for this slot are almost equally daft just as they are with the religious slot.

    2. Ian Wragg
      October 23, 2021

      Burning trees at the Drax power station which emits more CO2 than coal and pretending it’s good CO2 just shows the nonesense behind the debate.
      I don’t think John that you really believe all this CO2 nonesense.
      Mankind will wean itself off fossil fuels when they become expensive or unavailable.
      Windmills and electric cars are not the answer.

      1. Lifelogic
        October 23, 2021

        Indeed.

        Electric Cars can be an answer if and when we get lighter, cheaper, more capacious, more rapidly charging and longer lasting batteries. I tend to think fuel cells and a fuel tank will win out in the end though.

        1. Nota#
          October 23, 2021

          @Lifelogic – electric cars don’t get to move without the permission of the Chinese and French Governments they virtually own all the UK’s electricity sources..

      2. archie c
        October 23, 2021

        BULLSEYE!

      3. Lifelogic
        October 23, 2021

        How can anyone rational believe the net zero insanity? Five problems with net zero are below and any one of which makes the agenda pointless and idiotic. As all five are correct it is rather conclusive. If government can convince me all five are wrong perhaps I will come round, but I cannot see them doing this on any one of them let alone all five.

        A. The “solutions” proposed wind/EVs/Heat Pumps save little or no net CO2 anyway they just export some of it and the manufacturing jobs with it.
        B. CO2 plant food is not a major problem anyway in fact, on balance, it is probably a net positive.
        C. We would need full world cooperation which we will never get.
        D. Even if we had a serious warming issue (which we do not) the best way to cool the earth is not to reduce C02 that is a very inefficient method indeed.
        E. The vast cost of going for net zero does far more harm to the economy and thus it will cause far more damage than any climate change that results. Thus leaving far less money to spend or adapting to climate changes be they warmer, wetter, windier, calmer, hotter, cloudier or sunnier. Adapting is the wise course if and when it is needed.

        The climate alarmist agenda is also evil. It is frightening gullible children, adults and dopes like Greta. Many are even choosing not to have children it seems.

        1. Fedupsoutherner
          October 23, 2021

          They’re not having children in case they drown with the rising seas. Quick. Buy some shares in an arm band company. Sarcastic.

        2. Nota#
          October 23, 2021

          @LL +1

        3. DennisA
          October 24, 2021

          “Even if we had a serious warming issue (which we do not) the best way to cool the earth is not to reduce C02 that is a very inefficient method indeed.”
          In the early 70’s there were serious geo-engineering proposals for WARMING the earth, because of the cooling of the 60’s and 70’s. 1963 is the third coldest winter in the 362 year Central England Temperature record. 1976 is still the hottest Summer: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ssn_HadCET_mean_sort.txt

      4. John Hatfield
        October 23, 2021

        John’s argument and presumably the Greens’ is that trees absorb CO2 while they are growing so are carbon neutral when they are burnt.

        Reply Not my view. I am trying to get change from-a govt that thinks burning wood in a power station is fine

        1. Lifelogic
          October 24, 2021

          Yes but this is an idiotic argument. Chopping mature trees down building with the wood or burying them then growing a replacement tree would make sense. Were C02 actually a serious problem that is! Wood is just young coal and coal old wood after all.

      5. DennisA
        October 24, 2021

        https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/several-german-cities-halt-use-e-buses-following-series-unresolved-cases-fire
        Public transport companies are taking action after the electric bus allegedly triggered a fire in Stuttgart last week, newspaper Die Welt reports. The Munich public transport company, MVG, is taking eight similar e-buses out of service until the cause of the fire in Stuttgart has been clarified. The fire may have started while the bus was being charged in the depot, according to investigators, who assume that a technical defect may be the cause of the fire. The 30 September fire completely destroyed 25 buses in the depot, including two with electric drives, causing damage worth millions of euros. The Stuttgart transport company, SSB, has also halted the use of electric buses in the city. The incident followed a similar fire in June in a bus depot in Hanover, which destroyed the hall and nine buses. E-buses were then recalled but are expected to resume service in November. In April, a fire at the Rheinbahn depot in DĂŒsseldorf caused damages totalling several million euros. Investigators determined the fire had been triggered by a technical issue but could not clearly identify the cause.

    3. Donna
      October 23, 2021

      In the UK we’re cutting down trees so Johnson can have his HS2 white elephant train set.

      It is leading to 108 ancient woods (according to the Woodland Trust) or 0.29 km of ancient woodlands (if you believe HS2 management) being damaged or destroyed for a line which has no viable business case.

      1. Lifelogic
        October 23, 2021

        Indeed and increasing taxes hugely and disrupting people homes, lives and businesses.

    4. Pdb
      October 23, 2021

      No it hasn’t; electric cars require tarmac.

      The Greens are right about that I.e. Trams. 19th c electric tech. This entire “green” agenda has been polluted by nonsense.

      Nobody wants pollution; plastic were other materials could be used. But cars… Electric or otherwise require roads, and roads need tarmac, which is… Well hardly green. As are the production of batteries for said cars.

      The entite thing is a farce; hydrogen = Hindenburg. Heat pumps, not hot enough without super insulation I.e. Houses made out of 20ft thick hay bales.

      Well don’t put hydrogen into them, or bonfire night will come early every year.

      Farce.

      Our recycled stuff “isn’t” it is just burned or dumped in Africa. Farce. Never mind emissions, why don’t we tackle that, that and our chemical clothes fill the oceans with microplastics.

      Instead we get dribble “yes dribble” about C02. And Cow farts.

      1. John Hatfield
        October 23, 2021

        Cow eructations (belches).

    5. Hope
      October 24, 2021

      I want an accurate cost benefit analysis. Targets issued without any costing by May or Johnson!! Our taxes, not theirs but our money.

      The govt does not have any money it only has our taxes! Any future spending or borrowing is tomorrow’s tax rises. This idiotic govt. borrows money with interest to give away!! Worse it makes it law what percentage it will give away. Our taxes. More emphasis needs to be made this is our taxes, our money we could spend on our family, household or charity if WE wished. Not reckless Johnson and his party of economically illiterate wasters.

  2. turboterrier
    October 23, 2021

    For all the thousands descending in their air liners to attend the conference it will not be so much about who is there but who isn’t. In all negotiations, if you are not blessed with the main decision makers in the room it becomes a meeting of hot air. Plenty of opportunity to grandstand and managed the debate but not a hope in hell of closing the deal to implement real action. Should suite our PM down to the ground.

    1. Lifelogic
      October 23, 2021

      Well they are clearly not going to cancel this charade so the best we can hope for is they get it over with, agree nothing substantive and we all forget about it. Then we cancel all the mad plans they have net zero & heat pumps.

      My Georgian house has 20 radiators. Does Debden/Gummer really think I can change all those to larger ones or under floor heating, fit a very large heat pump, a new larger water tank, increase the power of the electric supply to the house, redecorate, dig up the garden heat source pipes & all for ÂŁ10,000. Plus change all the single glazed sash windows.

      It would be more like ÂŁ50,000+ÂŁ50,000 more for all the windows. My annual oil & electric bills are only about ÂŁ2,400. It would cost about ÂŁ20,000 PA in interest (or lost investment return) and depreciation. Great economics Lord Debden did you do a Maths or Physics A level I assume not? Or perhaps you do understand the reality and have other reasons for pushing these absurdities?

      After all this disruption I would not even save any fuel bills as electricity costs so much more than Gas or Oil anyway even if it gave a Coefficient of Performance of say 3. I would be about ÂŁ15-20K PA worse off and have a less satisfactory, slow and tepid heating system.

      1. Christine
        October 23, 2021

        I’d like to know how many government ministers have installed heat pumps and if they haven’t done already when do they plan to install them? Also when will the royal family install them on their estates? When will all government buildings install them? What will be the cost to tax payers for this massive conversion exercise? Oh, I forgot, climate change edicts only apply to the little people. It’s only us who have give up our holidays, our cars, live in cold houses and eat grass.

        1. Lifelogic
          October 23, 2021

          I read that non has. But Prince Charles does run his Aston Martin on waste cheese and win he tells us. Doubtless this is far worse in Carbon terms than petrol.

          Four teaching unions call for even more climate alarmist indoctrination in schools. Surely we get more than enough from the BBC. Will this be taught by the Religious Instruction teachers as no sensible and honest physics teacher would want to lie to their students scaring some to death would they?

        2. Nota#
          October 23, 2021

          @Christine, a survey this week of the Government by the Telegraph, were each individual was asked – came back with none.

        3. glen cullen
          October 23, 2021

          and only drive an EV

      2. Micky Taking
        October 23, 2021

        Seems like you made a bad choice on the house you live in – not very green, is it?
        Have you had a visit from the Eco-warriors yet?

        1. Lifelogic
          October 23, 2021

          Does not bother me it is not somewhere freezing like Scotland. I will tell them I will just wear more vests & jumpers, use hot water bottles and not heat the bedrooms. Plenty of logs for the fire in store.

      3. Original Richard
        October 23, 2021

        Lifelogic : “After all this disruption I would not even save any fuel bills as electricity costs so much more than Gas or Oil anyway even if it gave a Coefficient of Performance of say 3.”

        Correct, but I am expecting the Government to find ways to increase the cost of gas, such as with “green” taxes, and eventually introduce legislation for all gas boilers to be replaced with heat pumps/electrical boilers by a fixed date after which gas will no longer be supplied.

        1. Lifelogic
          October 23, 2021

          Indeed if they have to force you or bribe you to do something it is almost certainly an idiotic thing to do. If it were sensible people would do it anyway.

          1. graham1946
            October 23, 2021

            This has all the hallmarks of the diesel car scandal. I bet in five years, Boris will be gone and all this will be just a distant memory and all his acolytes will deny ever supporting any of it.

          2. glen cullen
            October 23, 2021

            Yes

    2. Narrow Shoulders
      October 23, 2021

      It would be interesting to know how much additional carbon those visiting and being ferried round Glasgow (when it has turned cold) will generate with flights, food, heating, taxis and buses plus the media entourage and the protesters.

      I suspect it will give the rest of a get out of jail free card for 6 months.

      I can not abide hypocrisy.

      1. Lifelogic
        October 23, 2021

        It seems they have lots of electric cars up there to ferry the “important” people about (but not remotely enough charge points) so they have had some diesel generator ones sent up. Doubtless all the electric cars and generators went there (and back) on diesel trucks and car transporters too! Fake greenwash!

  3. Mark B
    October 23, 2021

    Good morning

    They will need to negotiate the question of grants and loans from the rich countries to the lower income countries . . .

    From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs – Socialism.

    . . . Prime Minister Modi . . . it is unlikely he will be able to pledge cuts in Indian use of fossil fuels and will understandably want more financial support.

    Does he also need financial support for the nuclear weapons and space program ?

    /sarc

    When is this madness going to end ? If you want the likes of China, India and others to cut their CO2 emissions then you are going to have to do the same to them that the UK Government is doing to their own electorate – Price them out of the market ! Our removing ourselves from the energy market is just making things cheaper for them, and when things are cheaper, people consume more.

    The leaders of those so called developing countries know that, their economies and position is highly dependent on energy. This energy needs to be both reliable and as cheap as possible. For China especially, if their economy falters this could lead to unrest and a change in government. The CCP is very aware what happened to the former Soviet Union and has no intention of going the same way.

    I do not know what so called government experts are advising the government, but from mine and many other peoples perspectives, it isn’t working, and I think our kind host knows this too !

    1. Everhopeful
      October 23, 2021

      +many
      Lol
      I reckon JR is “playing possum”.
      He knows that it is just a load of “sound and fury”
.
      Signifying absolutely NOTHING!

      But what a waste of everyone’s time, money and energy.
      And whatever else, their shenanigans will land us up a lot poorer.

      Naughty non attendance! Tut tut. No wonder the Queen was cross!
      If I were the squirrel 🐿 who had hoarded all the nuts whilst others, bent on squirrelicide, eschewed nutrition, I would most certainly keep schtum and hold out for winter price rises!

      1. Lifelogic
        October 23, 2021

        COP26: Queen ‘irritated’ by leaders who ‘talk but don’t do’ on climate

        I assumed she was talking about the “talk but don’t do” Prince Charles, Harry and Megan, Emma Thompson types!

        1. Everhopeful
          October 23, 2021

          +1
          Yes
Her Majesty was mighty niggled!
          As well she might be.

        2. Donna
          October 23, 2021

          I’m dreading the day HM pops her clogs and we get Looney Tunes as her replacement. That’s the day I become a Republican.

          1. Lifelogic
            October 24, 2021

            Long life the Queen!

      2. David Cooper
        October 23, 2021

        IMHO Sir John is acting as the wise professor would act towards his gathering of keen undergraduates, namely to lead them towards concluding what the right answer is without actually spelling that right answer out for them. The more perceptive amongst us will already have realised that the answer is to scrap Net Zero, repeal the Climate Change Act and trust human ingenuity to address any problem arising from proven global warming, to the extent that we should not simply adapt to it and welcome the feeling of marginal additional warmth in our daily routines.

        1. Lifelogic
          October 23, 2021

          +1

        2. SM
          October 23, 2021

          +10

        3. Everhopeful
          October 23, 2021

          Yes

          That feeling of a lovely late afternoon seminar!
          He is very wise.

        4. Pauline Baxter
          October 23, 2021

          David Cooper. That is a very interesting comment.
          Maybe that is what a wise professor does but the one I came across, did it in a Seminar at university, circa 1968. A bit different.
          He was sat there saying yes or no to each suggestion immediately.
          Anyway, I have a feeling Sir John knows full well that CO2 is a harmless gas that feeds the plant life that feeds the animal life, including us humans.
          And that CO2 does NOT directly influence global climate for either good or ill.
          In other words Cop26 is a complete nonsense, a waste of time and money and it begins early NOVEMBER not December.
          Perhaps you are right. Us ‘Students’ do not need the Proff sat with us to reach the correct conclusion!

    2. Lifelogic
      October 23, 2021

      Rishi Sunak says there is “no reason why people in Manchester should wait several times longer for their bus than people in London”!

      Of course there is you silly dope. More people use public transport in London as it is more densely populated and parking, congestions charges, mugging cameras are all very expensive. Also it is usually raining or about to rain in Manchester so cars are far preferable.

      If you run say three times as many buses (to reduce waiting gaps) they will be even more empty (perhaps 3 passengers average instead of an average all day of say 9). It will also need three times the staff, three times the fuel, three times the number of buses, three times more maintenance and cost about 3 times as much per passenger with little or no extra fares.

      What on earth is such a foolish (PPE again) man doing in charge of the economy if he cannot even see this? The dope even thought “eat out to help” was a sensible use of tax payers cash and that taxing landlords on “profits” they have not made (often at over 100%) is sensible & sustainable. Another tax borrow and piss down the drain deluded & dim socialist at No 11.

      1. Original Richard
        October 23, 2021

        Lifelogic : “If you run say three times as many buses (to reduce waiting gaps) they will be even more empty (perhaps 3 passengers average instead of an average all day of say 9). It will also need three times the staff, three times the fuel, three times the number of buses, three times more maintenance and cost about 3 times as much per passenger with little or no extra fares.”

        Agreed.

        With the Government believing in CAGW and the COP26 jamboree about to start you would have thought the Government would have announced that all buses will be converted to using renewable electricity rather than increasing the number of fossil fuelled buses, especially if they are not full with passengers.

        Since buses are too large for batteries this will mean green hydrogen will be needed to power fuel cells. Burning hydrogen with air in an ice produces NOx gases.

        This will require specially dedicated wind farms producing hydrogen through electrolysis. But at least bus depots will be able to handle the liquid hydrogen at high pressures.

        It would be interesting to see the costs.

        1. Lifelogic
          October 24, 2021

          Vastly expensive inefficient and pointless. Even worse than those Boris routemasters which had read doors (the open read door was the best feature.

      2. MWB
        October 23, 2021

        Rubbish.

    3. glen cullen
      October 23, 2021

      Spot On Mark B on every single comment

    4. Paul Cuthbertson
      October 23, 2021

      MarkB – Agree with your comment. Re your final paragraph, the last thing anyone does is ask an “EXPERT”. These people are so full of BS, the man in the street has more common sense.
      The trouble is, Experts are in abundance!!!!!

    5. john waugh
      October 23, 2021

      This advice -quoted in The Institution of Engineering and Technology magazine of 3 April 2020 was from a report by the UK Energy Systems Catapult research group warning that government targets for carbon emission reduction are unlikely to be met.
      “Achieving net zero significantly earlier than 2050 in our modelling exceeds even our most speculative measures,with rates of change for power, heat and road transport that push against the bounds of plausibility.”

  4. Shirley M
    October 23, 2021

    This ‘religion’ will do far more damage than actual climate change. We all see that fossil fuels will eventually run out and pollution is a great problem, but the methods being recommended are just as destructive.

    The world population is far too large, and is supported by science rather than nature. We will eventually run also out of the resources need by science and even more quickly if the plants and trees are decimated by a reduction in CO2 and growing populations. Governments want huge population just for their tax raising and consumers spending. The high population is even less sustainable than fossil fuels.

    1. Lifelogic
      October 23, 2021

      The net zero agenda will indeed do far more harm than climate change and the climate will clearly change regardless of net zero anyway.

    2. Old Salt
      October 23, 2021

      Shirley M
      I couldn’t agree more regarding population growth. The world population doubled in the last how many decades and would normally double compounding again in lesser decades barring a more severe pandemic/s. Present population growth is not sustainable even less so in the UK due to the rewilding and the immigrant invasion over the last few decades making us increasingly reliant on overseas supplies of food with secure sustainable transportation.

      Isolation hospitals, as of old, are not being prepared for the present or the future to keep such infection out of the main hospitals in an attempt to stop cross infection. Hospital car parks here are half empty even now for fear of infection. Nightingales assigned for the purpose now closed just when needed. Many people will never have their treatments and will needlessly suffer. People have been told to stay away to stop infections going in and getting infected by going in.

      As for net zero just how is it proposed to change the laws of physics. Some seem to think electricity comes out of the air down cables to the meter box.

      Regarding air heat pumps just where is the heat coming from to be pumped when the temperature is at and below zero other than topping up with mains electricity when it will be at a higher peak charge rate band via the smart meter that is if the grid can withstand the demand on top of the car recharging. Not forgetting ripping up all the floors for the necessary constant underfloor heating and or installing more larger radiators and water storage. I understand heat pumps are useless for hot water anyway needing alternative methods of solar and electric immersion heaters.

      If as suggested to insulate it will be necessary to go to triple glazing as more cold air falls away from the double variety as with walls. So stopping the draughts then we will all suffocate. Not a very healthy situation.

      This is going to radically change lifestyles over time.

    3. Nota#
      October 23, 2021

      @Shirley M – isn’t it weird, CO2 growth has a correlation with population growth.

    4. John Hatfield
      October 23, 2021

      Shirley M – what angers me are the charity plugs on television asking for money to help supply clean water and other needs to Africa’s poor. The problem in Africa is too many people. What Africa needs since a long time back is birth control to reduce the population to a size the land can support.

  5. oldtimer
    October 23, 2021

    COP 26 should be relabelled CON 26. The IPCC takes no account of naturally emitted CO2, cannot identify the difference between man made and naturally emitted CO2 in the atmosphere and has yet to demonstrate that its models of future temperature changes, based on man made emissions, can be relied upon as useful predictors of global temperature. The whole circus is a disaster of misdirected effort and wasted money. There are issues that could usefully be discussed and agreed upon, such as ideas to reduce food waste or improve water supply – tens of millions of people today lack adequate supplies of one or other or both. Instead we are treated to the farce that is CON 26, obsessively consumed with a gas (CO2) that is essential to the food chain..

    1. Iain Moore
      October 23, 2021

      I have yet to hear the BBC report on the CO2 the Las Palmas volcano is emitting , about as close as they get to it is to mention ‘gasses’.

      1. Iago
        October 23, 2021

        It is emitting continuously a vast amount of sulphur dioxide – see the windy weather site – eclipsing even the amount produced by the Chinese Communist Party.

        1. glen cullen
          October 23, 2021

          Don’t worry about it, its not man-made – just buy an EV and forget about volcaneos

      2. glen cullen
        October 23, 2021

        As the UN IPCC have already stated – volcanoes aren’t man-made and are therefore not included in the equation

    2. Ian Wragg
      October 23, 2021

      The IPPC is an art of the One World Government UN.
      It’s a camouflage to control the western population in favour of China, India and Russia.
      The fact that these countries refuse to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels says it all.
      We promise not to use them so there will be more for them.
      This can only be achieved by impoverishing ourselves which is the plan.

      1. glen cullen
        October 23, 2021

        Correct

    3. glen cullen
      October 23, 2021

      They still don’t even know if the projected rise in temp is due to sun flares that have increased the amount of co2, or its the increase in man-made co2 that has resulted in a projected temp rise, and they discount natural occuring co2……but none of that means anything as the climate change crusaders believe the written word of their bible – the IPPC report

  6. Sharon
    October 23, 2021

    The target of zero carbon is a purely political target. If it was genuine, why would they be destroying the environment in the name of going carbon free? And the most lush places on earth, are those with the higher CO2 outputs.

    Far better to clean up and take care of the environment of rubbish etc. I’m tired of this deliberate attempt at impoverishing the west under the veil of ‘climate change’. Adapt to the changes, not play God in a futile attempt to change Mother Natures’ cycles. After all, she’s been around for rather longer than humans.

    1. John Hatfield
      October 23, 2021

      Sharon as plants consume CO2, would not the most lush places on earth be those with the higher CO2 consumption.

  7. Fedupsoutherner
    October 23, 2021

    The whole COP26 thing is an utter farce. Forget about how the Chinese will react to change…wait until the Americans realise how it will affect them. They are a nation used to cheap fuel and unlimited travel. It’s all a load of crap which will only affect the poorer in society and those on average incomes while the wealthy carry on as normal. I’m sure the likes of Amanda Holden who has enjoyed 5 holidays abroad this year is not concerned or going to change her lifestyle. I truly am sick of hearing the phrase climate change and watching Glasgow get its volunteers out to clean the crap from its city to impress the world was laughable. Don’t they think a clean city on a permanent basis would be nice? Why do we always need a conference to clean up? Does our 95 year old worn out Queen really need to drag herself up there to listen to a load of hot air by people who will enjoy the chance to have a nice break in a posh hotel generating loads of CO2 while they do it? The next few weeks on the BBC will be more unbearable and self opinionating than ever and I’ll be switching off.

    1. Iain Moore
      October 23, 2021

      I see a university had a look at some of the celebrities carbon foot print from flying, Bill Gates racks up some 1,600 tons of it, Emma Watson ( of Harry Potter fame) who likes to parade her environmentalism, including some very dodgy eco fashion to Prince Williams eco thing, racks up 15 tons. Average UK emission per capita 7 tons . But it is alright , they have off set their CO2 , which has to be the biggest con out there, it allows the rich and famous exempt themselves from the climate change restrictions that they would foist on the rest of us.

      1. lifelogic
        October 23, 2021

        +1, but are we actually sure they really have offset it, do we have any proof and was the offsetting scheme real or would the trees have been planted anyway.

    2. majorfrustration
      October 23, 2021

      +2

    3. formula57
      October 23, 2021

      @ Fedupsoutherner “
wait until the Americans realise how it will affect them” – exactly so!

      Wait until we do! Wilfred Johnson is going to have to work overtime in Glasgow.

  8. Sakara Gold
    October 23, 2021

    It will take a major environmental catastrophe before any of the COP26 attending countries take effective action to bring the remorseless global temperature rise under control. Maybe the melted Russian arctic tundra will catch fire and be impossible to put out. Or perhaps the Chinese Three Gorges dam system will collapse under the weight of the additional rainfall (it very nearly did this year). Maybe the Greenland/Antarctic icecaps will rapidly melt, sea levels will rise and force the evacuation of major coastal cities

    The recent tremendous increases in the price of fossil fuels will provide a major impetus to the renewable energy industry, home insulation, heat pumps, EVs etc. The downside is that countries such as the USA, Russia, China, India, Japan, the EU etc will have to provide even more subsidy to the fossil fuel industry to appease their populations.

    Global temperature rises continued to break records this year. Those concerned with economic migration into the UK – of a mere 20,000 people a year – should consider what is going to happen if humanity is forced to evacuate the equatorial and coastal regions of the planet. Hundreds of thousands are going to rock up at Calais demanding shelter, sustenance and free medical care……

    1. Christine
      October 23, 2021

      Antarctic has had its coldest 6 months on record for 2021. Why do you think the term global warming has been changed to climate change? I live by the sea and have been warned for 40 years that sea levels will rise, yet the tide is further out than it’s ever been. Have you noticed that all these people issuing warnings work for the climate change religion, sorry industry. Follow the money.

      1. Lifelogic
        October 23, 2021

        +1

    2. Iain Moore
      October 23, 2021

      Russia and China have managed to set fire to their peat and coal seams …..”Xinjiang Province in northwest China. The region is home to Asia’s largest coal reserve and 40% of the country’s coal, as well as hundreds of underground coal fires” and another …. “an attempt to shut down the 130-year-old fire burning up the Liuhuanggou colliery in Xinjiang began in 2001, but failed ”

      Something the BBC won’t report as it goes against their climate change propaganda…….” Antarctica just had its coldest winter on record. 1/1 Extraordinary coreless winter (April – September) at South Pole Station. The average as been -61.1 °C the coldest ever recoded”. They will of course report on the fires in OZ , almost implying these trees spontaneously combusted from climate change , when there were a number of instances of arson, as there were in the USA, an environmentalist arrested for arson, and Turkey, they didn’t report that OZ suffered from a cold start to their winter where Sydney suffered from snow storms, it was even thought that Brisbane would get snow. As for the Artic…”USS Skate (SSN-578) made submarine history on 11 August 1958 when it became the first submarine to surface at the North Pole”. I understand the climate change doom mongering about the Artic is taken from data from 1979 when there were extensive ice sheets, so anything from there on looks bad.

      Do not trust the BBC’s reporting for they have become little more than political activists for climate change.

      1. glen cullen
        October 23, 2021

        Correct

    3. Lifelogic
      October 23, 2021

      What “remorseless global temperature rise” are you talking about? The debunked hockey stick perhaps? The ones who used the hide the decline “trick”.

    4. Original Richard
      October 23, 2021

      Sakara Gold : “Those concerned with economic migration into the UK – of a mere 20,000 people a year…”

      20,000 people a year is the predicted number of illegal immigrants expected to arrive in Kent this year crossing the English Channel from France in small boats.

      The total net immigration is running currently running at around 300,000 per year.

      1. The Prangwizard
        October 23, 2021

        I’ve been forecasting 50,000 getting across the Channel, and when the lies about numbers fed to us are exposed I will be roughly correct.

    5. Original Richard
      October 23, 2021

      Sakara Gold : “Global temperature rises continued to break records this year.”

      How do you explain please that CO2 was at 400 ppm 4 million years ago, with the planet 3 degrees centigrade warmer than it is today and long before man-made CO2 existed?

      Also please explain why the CO2 then dropped to 280 ppm during the ice age which had its maximum 22,000 years ago.

      And, more importantly, why did the Earth’s temperature begin to rise again before man-made CO2 existed?

      1. Fedupsoutherner
        October 23, 2021

        Sakara can’t explain any of it. She’s probably out campaigning somewhere to save the world.

      2. Lifelogic
        October 23, 2021

        Indeed and how did we get out of that ice age without using coal, oil, cars, electricity, aircraft!

    6. MFD
      October 23, 2021

      Well Sakara Gold, you really are a joker, I like your Billy Connolly style, or do you REALLY believe the nonsense we are being told? Listen to the MSM and if its on the BBC it all lies!

  9. MFD
    October 23, 2021

    A meeting of deluded idiots ranting about plant food. The blond moron will fit in really well.
    To think they can control nature shows how stupid they are, Have they stopped the million of tons of “ carbon “ pouring out of the latest volcano – no? Surprise! Surprise.
    I will not play, life is survival and that is my only objective. The Green Idiots will not stop anything and we all know its to make money. Climate change? A big fraud.

    1. Lifelogic
      October 23, 2021

      Fraud and religion – they are usually mixed up. If you want to get rich start a business but if you want to become really rich start a religion.

      1. MFD
        October 23, 2021

        Yes! Like Paisley in NI , a backstreet preacher turned politician, land owner, ranch in America.
        It did him no good as he died before he needed it ! But sonny has done ok following him into politics. So add to business and religion- politics!

  10. Nottingham Lad Himself
    October 23, 2021

    It’s a pity that more prominence is not being given to straightforward ways of actually removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

    The main one is the anaerobic gasification of biomass, which leaves a residue of charcoal, of near-pure carbon, which in turn can be used to remove pollutants from sea water and for many other things before being permanently laid to rest e.g. in deep sea trenches.

    The gas produced can be adjusted to have similar combustion properties to methane and used in its place, certainly for power generation.

    (The carbon in the biomass originally comes from atmospheric CO2 of course)

    1. probabLifelogic
      October 23, 2021

      There is no need to remove any atmospheric CO2.

      Far better ways of cooling the earth anyway – were these ever needed but they probably will not be anyway. Colder is rather more worrying.

      1. Nottingham Lad Himself
        October 23, 2021

        You are in a very small minority amongst anyone who actually matters in this regard, fortunately.

        1. glen cullen
          October 23, 2021

          If you agree you’re wise, if you deny you’re a bigot
.you have no evidence which group is in the minority, especially when the voice of one group is banned from the BBC, Sky, google etc

        2. Lifelogic
          October 24, 2021

          Perhaps but I am honest, independent and certain I am right.

    2. No Longer Anonymous
      October 23, 2021

      You do realise that Great Britain lost its glaciers only around 12,000 years ago. Not a Victorian in sight.

      1. Lifelogic
        October 24, 2021

        Those mammoths all used to have massive coal fires perhaps?

  11. Lester_Cynic
    October 23, 2021

    Sir John

    Despite all the evidence to the contrary you continue to support the green agenda which will result in a return to the Dark Ages and negate all the advances in our living standards which we owe to fossil fuels.

    It appears that you all seem to have lost your common sense, is it something that they’re putting in the water at the HoC or mass-hypnosis?

    You pay lip service to your contributors and then proceed to do the exact opposite

    Reply You clearly do not read my posts.

    1. Lester_Cynic
      October 23, 2021

      Reply to reply

      Why does reading your posts provide the answers?

  12. Gordowalo
    October 23, 2021

    Sir John, China and the so-called developing world (a) can find the wherewithal for advanced weaponry, nuclear missiles, navies and airforces, (b) does not need to follow the footsteps of the ‘developed world’ in making their own progress. Much of Africa and elsewhere went straight to mobile phones, without first developing and installing a fixed line network. Why should they not do similarly with energy? I do not wish to spend our resources in subsidising the energy needs of other countries who spend on advanced weaponry.

  13. Lester_Cynic
    October 23, 2021

    My friend, Xxxx tells me that you delete ALL her posts!

    Which lends weight to my assertion that there’s massive censorship on your blog which makes it utterly worthless, and I bet you won’t publish this!

    Reply Yes I delete all of one person because they always say the same thing. I have written to them to explain the publishing rules about making allegations about named people.

    1. acorn
      October 23, 2021

      Dear Lifelogic, why do you keep allowing that John Redwood bloke to keep posting on this/your site? Admitted, he does raise many EU bashing topics, whereas you “always say the same things” and, always get past moderation.

      1. Lifelogic
        October 23, 2021

        Oh well, at least what I say is true!

        1. acorn
          October 23, 2021

          Thanks for the reply JR 😉

    2. Julian Flood
      October 23, 2021

      PP is ubiquitous.

      JF

    3. formula57
      October 23, 2021

      @ Reply “… I have written to them to explain…”– a step well-beyond normal courtesy in the circumstances and a compellingly eloquent refutation of the silly complaint.

    4. Lester_Cynic
      October 23, 2021

      But you don’t delete Andy’s posts and he’s always saying the same thing, in fact it’s extremely predictable!

      1. Micky Taking
        October 23, 2021

        Perhaps Sir John deletes more than we put up with on here?

        reply There is only one person who is always deleted

  14. Nig l
    October 23, 2021

    I won’t be following it. I know already the virtue signalling BS that will be spun as major breakthroughs whilst in the meantime we as a country will continue to suffer from Johnsonitus.

    What are the odds of a lockdown suddenly being necessary post COP?

    1. Christine
      October 23, 2021

      I thought the same that any restrictions are being held back until after this conference. If COVID rates are so high in the UK then why would 30 thousand delegates be flying in and putting themselves at risk? Why are they allowed to bypass the restrictions imposed on the rest of us? It’s because world government’s know this has become a money making scam. We have ample evidence of them mingling maskless then hurriedly putting them on for the photo op.

      1. MFD
        October 23, 2021

        They will have a badge on their lapel, so the virus will know they are not to be touched. One mustn’t harm saints .

    2. Fedupsoutherner
      October 23, 2021

      Nig1. Oh God, I hadn’t thought about lockdown being linked to COP. Of course, no wonder they don’t want to lockdown now. Very good observation by you. Watch this space.

  15. Narrow Shoulders
    October 23, 2021

    No mention of over population then?

    Until our eco-miscreants start to preach to China, India and Indonesia and Brazil about their use of carbon and the size of their populations I will know that climate change is just another hobby to control the plebs.

    The excuse that developed countries must move first and faster as they created the mess is a red herring, development is more entrenched in these countries so it should be easier for the less developed countries to take up new technologies first. We should not be ever guilted into anything by campaigners. Shades of “wear a mask to save granny”

    1. Peter Wood
      October 23, 2021

      According to my Google search, each human, on average, exhales about 1 kg of CO2 per day. (Politicians probably double that!) There are @ 7.7 billion of us on the planet. That makes 7,700,000 tonnes of CO2 PER DAY from all humanity just by being alive.
      For comparison, according to ATAG, Worldwide, flights produced 915 million tonnes of CO2 in 2019, or 2.5 million tonnes per day.
      COP 26 : a colossol con job and waste of time and money.

      1. a-tracy
        October 23, 2021

        Shhhh, they’ll wipe us plebs out with a bug or something.

  16. alan jutson
    October 23, 2021

    Just like all conferences before, it will end with a fudge of words that are almost meaningless, there will be aims, desires and targets for a whole host of actions, but no penalties.
    Some countries will take note and do nothing, others will pay lip service to the agreement but pick and choose the least harmful for them, the UK will of course as usual gold plate any proposed actions and steam ahead, and at the same time will cripple our economy and eventually impoverish its people.

    The important debate of: Warmer/changeable weather, manmade or not, is it fact or fiction, will never happen of course.

    1. Christine
      October 23, 2021

      It will end with the UK pledging itself to very expensive changes and the rest of the world doing nothing, just like the overseas aid budget.

  17. Richard1
    October 23, 2021

    the interesting thing is we are going to find out in the coming decades whether climate alarmism and all the talk of a catastrophe and an emergency is true or not, as there is no chance whatsoever of meeting the decarbonisation targets deemed to be necessary to stop the End of the World. my money is on there being a bit more warming as we know greenhouse gases such as CO2, other things being equal, raise global temperatures.
    But on nothing remotely approaching anything which could be described as an ’emergency’ or a ‘catastrophe’, which are these days the words of official parlance.

    1. John Miller
      October 23, 2021

      It will never end as long is there is money to be made from pretending.

    2. Fedupsoutherner
      October 23, 2021

      What Prince Charles and others like Al Gore were saying 35 years ago about the climate and how it would affect us has come to nothing. Hot air and too much of it. Still in their own way they will all become rich from it.

      1. glen cullen
        October 23, 2021

        If you question the UN IPCC you must question the whole United Nations, If you question the UK Green Revolution you must question the PM and his Cabinet of Government

  18. graham1946
    October 23, 2021

    Rich countries to give money to the poor ones? Surely this is standing ‘greenism’ on it’s head. In the UK, our government’s plans for going green involve taking money from the poor to give to the rich.

    1. John C.
      October 23, 2021

      Ah, but foreign aid takes money from poor people in rich countries, and gives it to rich people in poor countries, so this Green Aid slots in nicely.

  19. agricola
    October 23, 2021

    I suspect it will be the usual hypocritical talkfest of politicians who know little of what they speak. Communiques will be issued so that said politicians can depart with smug looks of satisfaction on their faces. I hope I am proved wrong and practical science based action results, but I am not holding my breath.

  20. Roger W Carradice
    October 23, 2021

    Sir John
    You know Flop26 is futile nonsense.
    Roger

    1. glen cullen
      October 23, 2021

      But they’ve already written the ‘success’ headline, even without the worlds polluters

  21. Bryan Harris
    October 23, 2021

    How many more times will they sing the same old song; “Only 10 years to save the Earth”?
    No doubt they will keep on telling us the same old lies well past 2050, no matter what happens.

    There is no balance to any of this – the fault and responsibility is always shoved on to the public, to suffer, and to be penalised for wanting to live. There is no real discussion – Just like covid, real debate is totally suppressed, deliberately.

    With Russia and other nations demanding ÂŁtrillions in bribes to even consider doing anything, I am very concerned what concessions Boris will make – Like an old aunt trying to sell off her unwanted ugly niece to the highest bidder, Boris is clearly working overtime to come up with ideas to save face. His of course.

    When are they going to admit that the possibility of oceans rising are extremely remote, especially now that we know despite the planet ready to burn, that both poles have more ice than they have had for decades, and that will continue to increase.

    Still we see news programs, even adverts for charities, spreading blatant fake scenes and news about polar bears and ice melting. The misinformation is everywhere.

    The best thing Boris can do is to cancel the farce, order himself a heavy duvet to snuggle up in and hide away from the world in, because we are heading for a mini-iceage – The dire prophecies of a planet heating up will not come true because they are not based on real science, but oppressive politics.

    1. Bryan Harris
      October 23, 2021

      Reliable links available

    2. Lester_Cynic
      October 23, 2021

      BH

      Great point!

  22. Pat
    October 23, 2021

    May I point out that should the problem be solved the entire green movement, the IPCC and its contributors and a vast number of Civil Servants worldwide will be redundant.
    Therefor be assured that the problem will not be solved.

    1. John C.
      October 23, 2021

      These conferences are part of the game. Pretend you believe in Climate Change and you get free air tickets, nice hotels and meals. If there were no conferences, it would hardly be worth while to continue the scam.

    2. glen cullen
      October 23, 2021

      And therein leith the real problem – money, power & control

  23. Donna
    October 23, 2021

    More trees!

    Meanwhile our the Eco Lunatics in Government are paying the USA to cut down live trees; transport them to the coast; ship them to the UK and transport them to Drax to burn and create electricity. Instead of using the (dead tree) coal or gas under our feet.

    When the Eco Lunatics stop doing something which is so obviously moronic and is doing absolutely nothing to reduce our CO2 emissions I might take them a bit more seriously.

    All this conference will achieve is more CO2 as the Elite fly in for their high-profile boondoggle and a lot of pointless hot air as they virtue-signal to each other. Chief amongst them, Johnson and the current Mrs Johnson, and the Royals …… none of whom ever intend to “own nothing and be happy.”

    1. glen cullen
      October 23, 2021

      Maybe the UK can do the same as Saudi Arabia and Carbon Trade its way out of the situation 
hey presto ‘net zero’ by 2060, and it only cost us £20bn without doing anything or changing anything

  24. Mike Wilson
    October 23, 2021

    Not one word about population.

    Enough sunlight energy hits the earth every hour to provide the world’s energy needs for a year.

    1. No Longer Anonymous
      October 23, 2021

      And stores it in dead trees.

  25. Kenneth
    October 23, 2021

    The government’s strategy is never going to work.

    Not enough are truly convinced. I know people who say they agree with the BBC propaganda and then regularly take jets around the world. The problem with propaganda is that it has no roots. People parrot the slogans – some even demonstrate – governments even pass legislation – but the message doesn’t really sink in.

    Endless summits will never work. Top-down diktats and BBC “nudging” won’t work.

    It will only work when “green” policies are good for our pockets.

    In order words, the only thing that will work is innovation and conservation

  26. DOM
    October 23, 2021

    Wanna protect the planet from humanity? Stop consuming and stop procreating.

    The more people on the planet the greater the threat. The more we consume the greater the threat. Solution? Nobble economic growth. Deter economic growth and impose crushing taxes to crush consumption

    Slash the size of government and the State which consumes and wastes more than the civilian population and the private sector by slashing public spending and who holds scarce resources in complete contempt

    Impose a no child policy on couples unlike Johnson who has fostered a tribe of them, all consuming scarce resources like it’s going out of fashion

    Does Johnson and Biden care about the environment? Like the hell they do. They couldn’t give a toss.

    We’re being taken for fools and people continue to vote for these charlatans and bullshitters

    At some point the population will wake up and realise they’ve been played like fools. I’m looking forward to that moment. Only moral, decent politicians will elected

    1. No Longer Anonymous
      October 23, 2021

      Yes. The personal behaviour of those who exhort us really does need to be examined.

      My carbon footprint is much lower than – say – Andy’s .. yet my family’s contribution to the furthering of humanity is already so much greater !!!

    2. Everhopeful
      October 23, 2021

      +1

    3. acorn
      October 23, 2021

      Dom, by any chance are you related to Jacob William Rees-Mogg? Accepted that this site is stuffed full of conspiracy theorists / omni-denialists; everything from Covid, via face masks and vaccinations, to climate change, basically “outliers”.

      Surely, even you must understand that the educated half of this nation, can’t afford to let these “outliers” wander freely, super-spreading the bug in our pubs and supermarkets. The UK must immediately introduce a vaccine passport such as the so successful French version.

      These “outliers” have to understand that there are things that the state will no longer allow them to do; and, there will be places they will no longer be allowed to frequent. This nation needs a very large dose of discipline. Sadly, we have a government that has a laissez-faire ideology that is totally incompatible to what is required.

      1. Peter2
        October 23, 2021

        This nation needs a very large doseof discipline….oh acorn how all you lefties love control.
        Frightening.

      2. Nottingham Lad Himself
        October 24, 2021

        Indeed, Acorn – in particular, something needs to be done about the education-immune offspring of ukip/bnp/rp voters to prevent them from disrupting the education of the rest of their class.

        1. Peter2
          October 24, 2021

          Gosh eugenics and State population control too NHL.
          No end to the fun you lefties want imposed .

  27. ChrisS
    October 23, 2021

    Your narrative today just confirms everything that is wrong about this debate.

    As far as the 20 “Like Minded Developing Countries” that issued the statement are concerned, what was emitted in the past is now irrelevant. They need to realise that we are where we are and we collectively need to reduce FUTURE CO2 emissions starting now. We have at least done our bit by already cutting our emissions of CO2 by half, the only country to do so.

    If the largest polluters are not prepared to cut their emissions aggressively, UK politicians should stop attempting to impoverish our own country by chasing a target that will make no measurable difference whatsoever to global warming, if it exists.

    At the very least we should pause until the others catch up and use the time and money saved to increase our generating capacity with new nuclear stations whose output is both green and reliable.

    1. glen cullen
      October 23, 2021

      Remove the UN IPCC bible from the equation – now tell me why its so important to reduce co2

  28. John Miller
    October 23, 2021

    Planting new trees if we really achieve “zero carbon” will be pointless as they will be unable to photosynthesize if Carrie gets her way. Still, Boris has already committed to planting 30 billion trees hasn’t he? I lost count during the bonkers 2019 election propaganda.

    1. glen cullen
      October 23, 2021

      ‘’ Government confirms plans to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act’’ http://www.gov.uk
      We need this to happen soonest to start the process for a quick general election and to avoiding government ignoring and doing what they like for 5 years without any regard to their manifesto or the voter

    2. The Prangwizard
      October 23, 2021

      Sir John wants to chop them down and burn them.

  29. Sakara Gold
    October 23, 2021

    I was pleased to receive a letter from the Winter Fuel Payments Dept of the DWP in the post this morning. Their letter advised that I have been successful in my application for a “winter fuel payment” of ÂŁ200, which will apparently hit my bank account shortly!

    I’m a sucker for electoral bribes. Rock on Rishi and ThĂ©rĂšse 🙂

    1. John C.
      October 23, 2021

      It will cancel out the green subsidy charge you pay with your energy bills. A farce, but one of many.

  30. Original Richard
    October 23, 2021

    PM Johnson has already defined the politics of the COP26 jamboree when he said last month at the UN :

    “We started this industrial revolution in Britain: we were the first to send the great puffs of acrid smoke to the heavens on a scale to derange the natural order.”

    So expect calls from many countries for reparations from the UK for starting the Industrial Revolution, for their CO2 emissions to be allowed to catch up with those emitted by the UK in total and for aid to be given by the UK to effect and subsidise their transition off fossil fuels.

    1. X-Tory
      October 23, 2021

      OMG – did he really day that??? This has obviously become a form of mental obsession that needs medical treatment. He now resembles those religious fanatics who engage in self-flagellation, or even self-crucifixion, in order to repent their sins and cleanse their souls.

      The industrial revolution – like the British Empire – was Britain’s gift to the world. It improved the quality of life for all humanity. For him to now see this as some form of ‘original sin’ is proof that the man has gone completly mad.

      1. glen cullen
        October 23, 2021

        The way history is being re-written you’d think that we were the only country that had an industrial revolution…we may have been ahead by a couple of years in certain sectors but soon the French, Gremany, USA etc all caught up

    2. The Prangwizard
      October 23, 2021

      More proof of ‘Boris” insanity and his megolomania. He is is danger to us all. But he can rely upon Sir John’s total loyalty no matter what nonsense he comes up with. Notice how Sir John is moving and more towatds accepting green authoritarianism.

      Reply Not so

      1. Margaretbj.
        October 23, 2021

        The diametrically opposed positions greens and non greens take is hideous.All one has to view are the miles and miles of inhabited cities full of buildings ,syscrapers ,dereliction arridnes ,dry infertile hot countries,waste and simply realise that it is not a natural way of our world is being abused for the sake of people power.

        1. Margaretbj.
          October 23, 2021

          Not grammatical.but you get the gist.

  31. Newmania
    October 23, 2021

    China is a large economy, but we have got be careful, to remember what that does not mean .It does not the Chinese are rich. GDP per capita in China is USD 18,931 Even in the miserable UK we are 2.5 appx time richer (per cap) and 6.4 time as wealthy as the average Indian. So when we ask the “Not as rich” world to be poorer we are failing to check our privilege
    That argument goes only so far. The rich world dragged China out of subsistence. They cannot have it both ways 
.but they will, of course, not see it that way.
    This, like N Ireland, needs delicate and sustained pressure 
I`d send in Boris 



  32. Original Richard
    October 23, 2021

    The “net zero” COP26 should be discussing should be net zero population growth.

    It is ultimately population growth which is driving up CO2 emissions, pollution and the depletion of the Earth’s resources, both mineral and natural habitats.

    1. glen cullen
      October 23, 2021

      No one really knows what is driving up the forecasted/projected man-made co2, is it the higher number of sun flares, ICE vehicles, volcanoes, cows, jet aircraft, coal power stations, heating your home, cooling your home, anything manufactured
      Now the bigger question – Who’s telling us that the rise in co2 is bad and why do you believe them

  33. Iain Moore
    October 23, 2021

    I have been somewhat surprised by the laid back response there has been to China massively expanding its coal production. From the interviews on the subject it is considered all very reasonable for them to do that. Don’t worry we are told, they are going to go Carbon neutral in 40 years time , so no problem. It is as if any utterance from the CCP is to be taken as an unquestionable truth, and even if not, excuse me, wasn’t there supposed to be a climate emergency? Look at the hell that broke around the proposal for one measly coal mine here, but hundreds of them in China, no problem at all, anyway they said they wouldn’t build more coal fired power stations abroad, so that’s alright, it shows how committed they are , even though you could drive a coach and horses through the vagaries of that undertaking.

    I wonder if this exposes the political nature of the climate change religion, where it is a Marxist attack on the West , where the West gets relentlessly attacked but a Communist country gets a free pass, and or it is the effect of Chinese money that has bought people’s silence and corrupted organisations?

    1. Julian Flood
      October 23, 2021

      Yes. Yes as in “it’s a good question” not Yes as in ” all our politicians are taking bribes.”

      JF

  34. acorn
    October 23, 2021

    Cumulative CO₂ emissions since 1751 billion tonnes. (Figures from the Global Carbon Budget 2020: Global Carbon Project’s website)
    World 1650.00
    United States 410.24
    EU-27 287.02
    Europe (excl. EU-27) 238.86
    Asia (excl. China & India) 235.60
    China 219.99
    Russia 113.88
    Germany 91.98
    United Kingdom 77.84
    Japan 64.58
    India 51.94
    Africa 46.25
    South America 41.64
    International transport 41.17
    France 38.26
    Canada 33.11
    Ukraine 29.55
    Poland 27.56
    Italy 24.38
    South Africa 20.72
    Oceania 20.47
    Mexico 19.76
    Iran 18.28
    Australia 18.18
    South Korea 17.07
    Brazil 15.13
    All other countries individually less than 1% of the World total.

    1. X-Tory
      October 23, 2021

      Why on earth have you chosen to measure CO2 emissions since 1751? This makes no sense at all!

      Apart from the fact that the obsession with CO2 is utterly idiotic – other gases have much greater Global Warming Potential values – the emission of CO2 in the 18th and 19th centuries was NOT a problem, as there was no noticeable global warming then. If you believe that man’s emissions of CO2 are a problem (and I have seen no absolute PROOF of that) then you need to say when the level of CO2 – which is less than 0.04% of the atmosphere – rose above the level that is ‘safe’, or when it *will* do so, if this is in the future.

      Given that even the most extreme global warming fanatics claim that the danger lies in the future, the issue is who is emitting the most greenhouse gases NOW, and forcing them to stop doing so. FLOP 26 will show that the main emitters will not be persuaded through diplomatic means, so an escalation is required. I suggest that comprehensive trade sanctions should be the next step. Those who do not agree are clearly not serious about stopping these emissions.

      1. glen cullen
        October 23, 2021

        100% correct and well explained

      2. acorn
        October 23, 2021

        International Energy Agency (IEA) and the IPCC start their database from 1751; that was the first recorded time that data on CO2 emissions from fuel combustion occurred. Sorry, I should have realised that the 1751 date would make no sense on this site.

        1. Peter2
          October 23, 2021

          Odd that properly accurate thermometers didn’t exist until mid 1800s acorn
          Or do you disagree with the UN IPCC?

          1. acorn
            October 24, 2021

            Yet another disconnected comment from this site’s resident Strawman.

          2. Peter2
            October 24, 2021

            Why disconnected strawman acorn?
            You quoted 1751.
            Yet temperature figures in the IPCC report usually quote 1850 as that is when reasonably accurate thermometers were available.

    2. Nottingham Lad Himself
      October 24, 2021

      Very interesting, Acorn, thanks.

      And it explains the rationale behind many countries’ policies.

  35. BOF
    October 23, 2021

    Surely, it cannot be true that dirty diesel powered generators have been put in place to charge the Teslas that were bought to ferry around the ‘dgnatories?

    Please, someone, enlighten me.

    1. glen cullen
      October 23, 2021

      Quoting the PM ‘‘diesel is good, diesel is right, diesel works’’

  36. Original Richard
    October 23, 2021

    The Government appears intent to put us in the vanguard of reducing the World’s man-made CO2 emissions by electrifying the country powered by renewables.

    Unfortunately renewables technology does not yet exist to provide reliable power, let alone at an economic cost, and the electrification of everything will means hundreds of ÂŁbillions will need to be spent replacing cars and boilers with less efficient electrical alternatives and digging up every road in the country to upgrade the electrical distribution network.

    It is the economic equivalent of the Charge of the Light Brigade.

    Since we are only contributing 1% of the man-made CO2 emissions it would make better sense for the PM to announce we intend instead to spend £billions on a “Manhattan Project” sized R&D effort to find economic solutions to reducing man-made CO2 emissions, a task for which we are ideally suited.

  37. rick hamilton
    October 23, 2021

    The media ignore a 2016 report now available on the NASA website which concluded that increasing CO2 had brought about increased greening of the planet over the previous 35 years. This was no amateur guesswork but a conclusion of 32 authors from 24 institutions in 8 countries. Another source quoted the area of greening to be 18 million sq kms (about twice the area of the USA). They conclude that while carbon emissions do contribute to global warming, it is offset to an extent by this new plant growth. Also that while this conclusion is based on actual data the causes are only based on models:

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

    Surely we can accept that the planet has self-adjusting mechanisms beyond our control and there are other influences such as solar cycles, the precession of the earth etc. Politicians merely betray their arrogance and tenuous grip on reality when they claim that disastrously costly energy policies based on theoretical modelling will bring about an exact change in temperature to an accuracy of 0.5c. over decades

    Yes, we must stop polluting our planet. No, there is no thermostat and politicians cannot adjust the temperature of the globe to suit themselves. They should stop their scaremongering about a climate crisis and focus on practical clean environment measures. which most sensible people will go along with. And who is to say that the current climate is the optimum anyway – it is just what we are geared up to live with.

    1. SM
      October 23, 2021

      Eminently sensible comments.

    2. glen cullen
      October 23, 2021

      Not a story to be told at cop26…..for gods sake man, are you hoping to be banned like me, we’ve been given a script by the BBC and government
now follow it

  38. X-Tory
    October 23, 2021

    There are 4 things I desire from a politician: (i) Honesty; (ii) Commonsense; (iii) Consistency; and (iv) Patriotism. On that basis, and using the Socratic Method, we should ask all Tory MPs the following questions:

    1. Do you really believe that man’s emissions of greenhouse gases are a danger for the future of mankind? It seems to me that there are some Tory MPs who are dishonestly going along with the ‘Green Crap’ even though they don’t fully believe it. What, for instance, is the honest position of the Tory MPs on the Net Zero Scrutiny Group?
    If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, then the following questions need to be asked:

    2. (i) Do you agree that those countries that emit the most greenhouse gases should be FIRST ones to cut their output? And (ii) Do you agree that if Britain, with less than 1% of global greenhouse gases, cuts its output, but the big emitters don’t, then our efforts will be pointless?
    This is the commonsense test. If MPs are too stupid to see that *anything* we do is utterly pointless while we allow China and the like to continue to emit greenhouse gases, then they are too cretinous for words.

    3. (i) Do you agree that the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) are engaging in BLACKMAIL? They are saying they will not cut their greenhouse gases unless we give them money! This is the test of consistency. And (ii) Do you agree that the UK should not pay other countries a penny for them to cut their greenhouse gases, but should instead apply SANCTIONS against them, and try to get other countries to do the same? This is how a country should deal with blackmailers and terrorists. Those who believe greenhouse gases are a danger to us must be consistent and say that the LMDC are effectively threatening us with chemical warfare unless we pay them. Even you, Sir John, have tripped up here. I’m sorry, but you say “it is unlikely he [Modi] will be able to pledge cuts in Indian use of fossil fuels and will understandably want more financial support”. Eh? What?? “Understandably”??? Why on earth do you think it is “understandable” that India should want financial support to stop destroying the planet? India is NOT a poor country: it has nuclear weapons, a space programme and gives foreign aid to other countries!!!
    [As an aside, given that ‘global warming’ is, self-evidently, a GLOBAL problem, and that countries like Bangaldesh are threatened by it most, then for them to be willing to continue to emit greenhouse gases proves they do NOT believe it].

    4. Do you agree that, until ALL larger polluters have reduced their greenhouse gases emissions to the same level as us, the UK should ONLY do those things that directly benefit our own economy, and NOT spend ANY money on actions that do not have an economic benefit – such as carbon capture. This is the patriotism test. And any Tory MP who does not openly oppose the government’s plans will fail it.

    1. glen cullen
      October 23, 2021

      Very well point – but I’d still question if a small increase in co2 is a problem (n.b to date not a single forecasted doom and gloom event has came to pass)

  39. Nota#
    October 23, 2021

    The Politics of COP26, oh so very simple, the question to be resolved is how much ‘money’ will be transferred form one economy to another. Or more correctly how much will Boris donate, without asking as usual, of the UK taxpayers money to countries that are Nuclear powers and are far more advanced in the space race than the UK – just so he and his cohort’s can make a grandstanding virtue signal gesture.

    Forgetting all the time without an economy first approach there is no future in any case, regardless of dutiful meaningless speeches. You can only lead when your in a position of strength.

    1. glen cullen
      October 23, 2021

      NOTA# are you saying it all comes down to money……I believe you’re correct

  40. LJONES
    October 23, 2021

    Surely we’re in the middle of a deadly pandemic, a state of national emergency, aren’t we? You know – the reason why the extension of a draconian Act of Parliament has been nodded (or sniggered) through with no debate, scrutiny or proper vote. So why are hundreds of people flying into our plague-ridden country from all over the world?

    I can’t be the only one who sees this as an outrageous waste of public money and an insult to the intelligence of thinking people. It seems to be an excuse for posturing on the world stage, and talking nonsense in an echo chamber.

    Reply More than 600 MPs agreed about the CV 19 measures. I disagreed but accept it was an entirely democratic process.

    1. DOM
      October 23, 2021

      No, the party whips told MPs to vote in a certain direction. The wants and wishes of 600 sheepish MPs are neither here nor there

      We are being dragged into an authoritarian abyss by this odious PM with agreement from the vile Labour party and its unionised client state and every single MP for whatever reason are either careless or care not.

      At some point the British people will say enough is enough of this grotesque attack on our very body, identity and soul and they will vote accordingly. I hope that moment occurs before I expire. It needs to before they destroy our country

    2. LJONES
      October 23, 2021

      Then it should have been made clear it was a ”democratic process” because surely it was obvious people were concerned. This still doesn’t address the fact that they agreed the ”measures” because they must think we’re in the middle of a ”deadly pandemic and state of national emergency”. So why, for goodness’ sake, is this crowded jolly taking place if a plague is imminent if not actually present?

      1. Nota#
        October 24, 2021

        @LJONES – its called ‘grandstanding’ – the look at me ego from those that get to steal from the taxpayer thinking it makes them look good. T

        hen again if we had a proper ‘Democracy’ our representatives would be supporting their constituents first, then the Country – the party should be incidental. (Very few get it they are lemmings) Whips have no place in democracy, but in our system for the most part it is the leader of a party that selects your candidate, not you the constituent and they get chosen first and foremost for their support they offer the gang leader.

  41. X-Tory
    October 23, 2021

    On the issue of energy, which I know you (rightly) care deeply about, I see that Liz Truss has today stated that critical national infrastructure, such as nuclear power plants, should only be built with “like-minded” partners, and has indicated that joint work on sensitive projects such as Sizewell C should only be done with nations that we have a “bond of trust” with. Surely, on the basis of these statements, EDF and any other French companies should be excluded? If not then Liz truss is failling every one of my four tests for a good politician: honesty, commonsense, consistency and patriotism!! France is our ENEMY. Macron hates us and is constantly threatening us. To allow any French company – especially one which is state controlled such as EDF – anywhere near our energy infrastructure is pure insanity.

  42. turboterrier
    October 23, 2021

    X – Tory

    The four things you desire?

    Sorry to have to tell you pal but you and about 10 friends would have a job to count them on the fingers of both hands.

  43. glen cullen
    October 23, 2021

    ‘’ Everyone will be sympathetic about electric cars’’
    Takeaway government(s) subsidy to the manufacturer and buyer and electric cars are dust

    1. Mark
      October 24, 2021

      Frankly I do not think electric cars will be popular in South America or Africa or most of Asia. They have little hope of being able to charge them outside of the biggest cities.

    2. Nota#
      October 24, 2021

      @glen Cullen – as always with this Socialist Government those that can’t and possibly could never be able to afford something get the privilege of directly funding those that already could afford things. Subsidies destroy markets, what they don’t do is create them.

  44. Nota#
    October 23, 2021

    The message or the dead…?

    Boris Johnson pledged to turn the UK into the “Qatar of hydrogen” with just a meager UK taxpayer funding of $1.3 billion

    Jim Racliff alone – $2.34 billion investment in Norway Germany and Belgium to produce Hydrogen

    The Japanese Company Nippon Sheet Glass is now producing glass in St Helens using Hydrogen

    German Government – $10.3 billion to produce Hydrogen

    French Government – $8.2 billion to produce Hydrogen

    There are caveats(the source production), but converting the existing gas home heating stock to use Hydrogen rather than importing heat pumps is an effective solution. You don’t have to throw everything out, start again and top up landfill. It doesn’t in turn produce a massive World Pollution/Green House Gas situation that Boris’s ‘grandstanding’ nonsense would create.

    Above all the real answer for the safety security and resilience of the UK is cost effective ‘homegrown’ UK owned electricity production, without that the rest can’t happen. That cant happen without a strong vibrant economy.

    Boris needs to start getting the basics sorted before all the ‘grandstanding’

    1. Peter from Leeds
      October 23, 2021

      As others have commented burning hydrogen efficiently in air results in NOx (at higher levels than burning natural gas – CH4). Hydrogengate?

    2. Mark
      October 24, 2021

      You need to look at the cost of the hydrogen. No-one has a cheap way to produce it. It will only be made where government mandates its use, and the market will remain limited until it can be produced cheaply (which may be never).

      1. Nota#
        October 24, 2021

        @Mark – less pollution, and less ‘Climate Change’ damage than the production and delivery of heat pumps on mass. Also less overbearing ‘grandstanding’ with pointless impossible ‘virtue signals’

        1. Mark
          October 24, 2021

          But are you prepared to see your heating bill increase 10 times?

  45. glen cullen
    October 23, 2021

    ‘’ it is going to take more such conferences to chart a reliable path to net zero for the world’’
    SirJ you’re still falling into the trap that we need to achieve ‘net zero’ because it says so in the climate change bible i.e. the IPCC report

    What if, and I mean maybe, all things considered, there might be a number of scientists who believe that some aspects and conclusions of the IPCC report might be wrong
there, I’ve said it out loud the IPCC could be wrong. I expect I’ll be banned shortly and tar n’ feathered

  46. Nota#
    October 23, 2021

    If only the UK had a political opposition that used logic and real facts. Then we may get a Government that also be in tune with the Country

    1. glen cullen
      October 23, 2021

      I’m praying for that day

  47. Michael Herriott
    October 23, 2021

    Our leaders everywhere seem to have exposed themselves as weak.
    Weak minded, weak willed, weal politically, and everything else.
    The Vatican must be very jealous at the speed and size of the success of the new religion.
    It’s about time somebody with some authority assembled the necessary opposition to this senselessness.
    I’m not holding my breath though. We are already in the days when there’s so much confusion that it’s now morally ok for adults to put it in to the minds of young children that they might have been born in the wrong bodies.
    The end of the age must be near.

  48. Paul Cuthbertson
    October 23, 2021

    The disbanding of the COP26 will solve most problems. By the way, ask your self a question, where does the money paid into the Paris Climate Accord agrrement go? Climate!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Paul Cuthbertson
      October 23, 2021

      ….agreement….

  49. Ed
    October 23, 2021

    I promise to start to perhaps think about worrying about man made climate change if 3 criteria are met:
    1. The rich, the famous, the powerful, politicians and, crucially, climate czars need to give up their private jets.
    2. One just one of the doomsday predictions to be right.
    3. Incontrovertible evidence that the Holocene climatic optimum was caused by Bronze age farmers driving around in SUV’s

  50. a-tracy
    October 23, 2021

    Don’t we already transfer great wealth by importing stacks of stuff from the developing nations?

    It’s a bit odd, you’d think they’d learn from the first developing nations energy inefficiencies and put strategies in place to save money themselves first and then because their labour is lower cost sell on the new technologies to us – or can they only do that if they steal all of the inventions by making stuff for the inventors of the World?

    I truly don’t get the argument that they need to burn more fossil fuel etc because we did at one time. We only did at that time because there weren’t alternatives but 100 years on there are ways to develop differently the world has moved on but why don’t the China’s and India manufacturers, I don’t buy this at all, it is a weak argument, if they concentrated their efforts on their own developments of new technology we’d be buying from them because we can’t produce with our wage and high housing cost models.

    Mind you Kia and other lower cost cost manufacturers are making a march now and I’m glad because their after sales service and 4 year parts guarantees are so much superior than what we’ve put up with and their basic models are much better equip without having to buy all the add ons. I just wish they’d bring vans in with fuel efficiencies and good low cost servicing.

  51. Ignoramus
    October 23, 2021

    How on earth did mankind stop the medieval warm period?

    1. Fedupsoutherner
      October 24, 2021

      They went about their daily lives and didn’t listen to social media, the BBC or Greta.

  52. Mark
    October 23, 2021

    According to BP World Energy Statistics the composition of global primary energy demand in 2020 was

    Oil 31.21%
    Natural Gas 24.72%
    Coal 27.20%
    Nuclear energy 4.31%
    Hydro electric 6.86%
    Renewables 5.70%

    That is over 83% fossil fuels. To think that we can get to zero fossil fuels by 2050 or 2060 is pure fantasy – it can only be achieved by global nuclear war that exterminates humanity. Serious politicians will know that, and frame their COP26 thoughts accordingly. Already we have the LMDC group suggesting no change of approach to Paris, which dealt in aspirations, not commitments, and the US has stated it will not be funder of last resort for the $100bn p.a. wealth transfer programme. There is no basis for anything substantive beyond agreeing to meet yet again somewhere else, while keeping the propagandist industry busy.

    The other side of this coin is that as governments start towards much more modest initial emissions reductions targets they are rapidly coming up against realities. If you try to produce too little by way of fossil fuels you create shortages and price increases that will threaten social cohesion and acceptance of green diktat. Attempts at enforcing the unaffordable and unworkable – from insulation and heat pumps to EVs and radical diet changes – will increasingly be met with resistance. The public has little time for Insulate Britain and XR types: they move them out of the road. They will equally move politicians who aspire to make them poor, cold and hungry, and threaten their jobs, cars and homes to the sidelines as they come to understand exactly what the price is for this political virtue signalling.

    We have a much more real threat to concern ourselves: the rise of China and its increasingly aggressive tactics aimed at global domination. Further pursuit of the green agenda only makes it easier for China to establish dominance, as they have placed themselves to have dominant positions in the supply of key resources. That is the real politics of COP26.

    1. Pauline Baxter
      October 23, 2021

      Broadly I agree Mark.

    2. DavidJ
      October 23, 2021

      +1

  53. Peter2
    October 23, 2021

    The planet has warmed by 1.3 degrees centigrade since 1850
    Measured as a global average.
    More importantly the predictions of faster increases in the rate of growth of temperatures post 2000 have not happened.
    Confounding the IPCC’s computer models.
    Perhaps this is why global warming has been dropped and climate change is now the fashion
    Hotter warmer wetter or drier it can now all be blamed on us.

    Mankind survives in areas of our planet where average yearly temperatures are over 35 degrees and areas where average yearly temperatures are nearly zero.

    ER say the planet is on fire and we are all going to die in a few decades as a result.

    We live in strange times.
    It is like some odd cult from the hippy 1970s has taken over.

    1. DavidJ
      October 23, 2021

      +1. Notable that the Mediaeval Warm Period is generally ignored too.

      1. Peter2
        October 23, 2021

        And the recent hockey stick saga is desperately being re established .

  54. Pauline Baxter
    October 23, 2021

    But . . . . .
    I can’t help suspecting that all of your diary today is, how shall I put it, a bit tongue in cheek.
    ‘They’ have told us before THIS is the LAST CHANCE to save the planet. Funny that – how many LAST chances can there be?
    WE should give more cash to developing countries?
    Coal, cars, cash and trees.
    Coal. Well we’ve very little coal mining left now unfortunately, so we can virtue signal on that one.
    Cars. We are doing our best to totally destroy all transport in this country given that very little can be done by horse and cart.
    Cash. I do not know where that is to come from, since there will be no ‘economy’ to produce it.
    As for trees. No one else seems to have noticed that GRASS stays green all year round, photosynthesizing, so absorbing CO2 and giving out oxygen. Deciduous trees have no green leaves in Winter, so do not photosynthesize.
    Strikes me, we and indeed other countries would do best to have acres and acres of open grassland, grazed by meat supplying cattle. As much land as possible, growing fruit and vegetables. No wind farms or ground based solar panels.
    And produce far more electricity from NUCLEAR FUEL A.S.A.P. !

    1. Pauline Baxter
      October 23, 2021

      Should have said cattle and sheep, or meat supplying animals.

  55. DavidJ
    October 23, 2021

    The whole CO2 business is a scam, the basis of which has been comprehensively discredited by real scientists. Its sole purpose, along with other government policies of our time, is to follow the UN policy (Agenda) of moving towards a world government and, in doing so, achieve a truly massive reduction in world population to the benefit of the few.

    It must be opposed to preserve our countries, not from so-called “global warming”, but from an authoritarian world government. Do we really want to leave such a world for our descendants?

  56. glen cullen
    October 23, 2021

    I see its being reported that petrol stations are back to normal – so why haven’t the pump prices returned to normal

    Reply Because the world oil price has risen

  57. Margaret Brandreth-
    October 24, 2021

    Growing muscle , for human consumption ( which I find repulsive) may stop the need to slaughter animals( which I also find repulsive.) The world now is taking many steps to attract the young, to a plant way of life . I welcome this .

Comments are closed.