How will governments gain popular buy in for their green revolution?

Yesterday I launched a pamphlet through Politeia on the ever topical green revolution. In it I asked one central question that governments seem reluctant to ask. When will government and the private sector produce the products and services that they regard as green which fly off the shelves and figure on people’s wish lists?

Today practically all of us accept carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which will heat the planet if more is produced and  nothing else changes. We also accept that advanced country  governments intend to take people on their railway track to net zero as soon as they can. The track will be signalled and  the trains powered by subsidy, carbon taxes, rules and laws.

Whilst most people tell pollsters they do think the world is warming and something should be done about it, most people do not plan to do anything very much about their own lifestyles anytime soon despite government urging. Most people have no plans to rip out the gas boiler and put in an expensive heat pump. Few want to pay up to get a new electric car, or have done the sums and cannot afford one. Many people still want to fly abroad for a holiday as soon as covid rules allow. Most family diets continue to include dairy  and meat products despite the carbon footprint they create.

Three other panellists had their say. They all spoke only about government policy and large companies. None of them would engage with my simple and crucial question about consumer behaviour. One of them told me the policy answer is a much higher carbon price, presumably to price the lower paid out of  carbon based goods and services. One proposed a big subsidy for electric cars to get more people to buy them. They all seemed to think the prime duty for the revolution rests with governments, and governments just need to keep sharpening the regulatory controls and fiddling with the taxes and subsidies until carbon based activity is taxed out of the system.

They did not wish to pursue the issue of why Germany, a keen green advocate, plans to continue with coal based electricity generation well into the next decade. They did not comment on the way large quoted companies, told to get out of coal, simply sell their coal assets onto someone less exposed to criticism.  They  seemed to think banning all new diesel and petrol cars as early as 2030 would work fine.  So I ask again, where are the iconic must have products of the Green revolution? Where is the  new domestic heating system, the new diet, the new personal transport that has the pulling power of the smartphone, the ipad and the Amazon Prime and Netflix  subscription? For this revolution to take off governments need to engage with the public, not just talk to the elites.

316 Comments

  1. Mark B
    June 11, 2021

    Good morning

    Today practically all of us accept carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which will heat the planet if more is produced and nothing else changes.

    Proof positive that, if you tell a lie often enough people will accept it as the truth.

    The Green Revolution is nothing more than Socialism and Crony Capitalism wrapped up in fluffy sentiment about saving Mother Gaia. Those with critical thinking minds know it is complete bollocks !

    What warms the Earth is the Sun in the sky, clouds (water vapour) and methane. Methane really is a greenhouse gas but, like Carbon Dioxide (0.03% of the atmosphere) it has little overall effect. But we have said all this.

    If you want Green products to sell, make them cheaper, really green, more reliable and better than that which they are replacing. Much like LED lamps / technology. LED’s are proving much much better. I have LED lights at home. I can change the colour of them. Control them remotely via my Smart-Arse phone and save energy. The cost is higher but the life and functionality is better.

    Reply
    1. NickC
      June 11, 2021

      Mark B, It is generally accepted that the Earth’s global temperature, without an atmosphere and depending on assumptions about albedo etc, would be about 255K. The whole atmosphere (existence, circulation, and “greenhouse” gases) adds only c33K (total c288K). Of the GHGs water vapour is by far the most important, and CO2 merely fills a couple of “holes” in the water vapour IR spectrum.

      Let me quote Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia (probably the centre of global warming belief in the UK): “To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science“. Climate change is real; catastrophic global warming due to man is a hoax.

      Reply
  2. Peter Wood
    June 11, 2021

    Good Morning,

    Sir John, CO2 levels have increased from about 250 ppm to 400 ppm, or by 0.025% by volume of the earths atmosphere. This we are told is the main cause of global warming. Have you seen the scientific proof of this claim? I’m referring to experimental proof, peer reviewed and repeatable. Not coincidental data that suggest cause and effect. I have not.

    Meanwhile, the EU commission is suing Germany in the ECJ to confirm superiority of EU law/courts over national law/courts. The ECJ will no doubt provide the required judgement. This means the ECJ, and EU law, is superior to all European nations domestic courts and laws. To follow through: EU commision rule becomes the law of all Europe, Germany manouvers to consolidate it’s control over the Commission, the once independent nations of the EU are then effective provinces under German control.

    WAKE UP EUROPE!

    Reply
    1. Peter Wood
      June 11, 2021

      ** Correction 0.015%….

      Reply
    2. hefner
      June 12, 2021

      As NickC seems to have done, learn a bit about spectroscopy, the role of H2O, CO2, O3, CH4, N2O, and other CFCs, HFCs (all with concentrations smaller, very often much smaller than 1%, i.e., ppmv, ppbv), also a bit about radiation transfer, and then see whether you might agree with Mike Hulme (and NickC, it would seem).
      As for peer reviewed journals, what about you subscribing to the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, or the journals of the American Meteorological Society, or American Geophysical Union. I think most of them can be consulted for free in most university libraries. University of Reading has them. You might have to pay for the photocopies of the articles you will take with you to further your understanding …

      Reply
  3. turboterrier
    June 11, 2021

    First rules of marketing and sales.
    Do the public want it enough to buy it?
    If the answer is don’t know , not sure, do the research, walk the talk and if the majority of the buying public don’t give you the wow factor change track and come up with something they really do want.

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      June 11, 2021

      Remove the EV subsidy, cancel the ban on ICE vehicles….and just see how many EVs are actually sold

      Reply
    2. David in Kent
      June 11, 2021

      I would say the first rule of marketing is rather to identify a suitable segment, a group of people with similar needs, and then focus our product design on meeting their needs.
      So the question is, who are likely to be the early adopters for green products?

      Reply
      1. Mike Wilson
        June 11, 2021

        Pensioners. Don’t drive far and lots own their own homes and can charge at home.

        Reply
        1. agricola
          June 11, 2021

          Give me a range of 400 miles, at night, using the aircon as it is warm at night in Spain, towing a glider trailer wt 100300 kg with occasional use of the CD player and sat nav. At no more than I have paid for my current vehicle. Do not asdume all pensioners are couch potatoes. When an EV can do all that I might get interested.

          Reply
    3. Lifelogic
      June 11, 2021

      First rules of marketing for the governments:-

      Do the public want it? No. So just change the laws, tax and fines systems or rig the market to force them to buy it like it or not.

      Reply
      1. Lifelogic
        June 11, 2021

        How many jobs does each new “green job” destroy or export from the UK must be at least 3. I estimate about five.

        See the Government’s bonkers – The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution (HTML version).

        Point 4: Accelerating the shift to zero emission vehicles – sure what is “a zero emission vehicle” no such thing exists they are emissions elsewhere vehicles. Often larger emissions net. Nor do we have zero emission electricity to charge them with!

        Point 5: Green public transport, cycling and walking – sure fuelled by steak, chips and beer what is the carbon input of all that food, packaging, and cooking food chain. perhaps we need a steak fuelled car?

        Point 6: Jet zero and green ships – yes sure what are you plans here rubber bands, sails perhaps? Nuclear Ships perhaps. 1

        Reply
        1. Lifelogic
          June 11, 2021

          Point 8: Investing in carbon capture, usage and storage.

          Very energy wasteful & thus circa doubling the cost of the electricity and completely pointless to do this anyway.

          Usage of the CO2 they say, what for sparkling water, cola, beer? But then you have not captured it have you?

          Reply
          1. Lifelogic
            June 11, 2021

            At Drax they are expensively importing wood from America on diesel ships (captured carbon) then burning it to release the CO2 again (rather than storing it). Yet they are pushing their carbon capture agenda. Perhaps the Government need to make their minds up. To any sensible engineer the agenda is insane.

            The reason they are doing this is to (dishonestly) claim this energy is “low carbon”, in fact wood produces more CO2 per unit of energy than coal does. Even before you add the ship and truck transport diesel.

      2. NickC
        June 11, 2021

        Lifelogic, Just look at your own household fuel bills. Electricity is 5 to 6 times more expensive than natural gas per kWhr. Even with a ground source heat pump, if you want better than low grade heat the CoP (Coefficient of Performance = heat out/electricity in) will be less than 5 and probably more like 3 (for a 45degC lift). That means your heating fuel bill would double. The government’s natural gas ban will start a revolution.

        Reply
  4. GilesB
    June 11, 2021

    Why have EU countries, Germany and Italy, agreed with Russia the annual importation of 110billion cubic metres of natural gas through Nordstream, while bleating about the use of fossil fuels?

    Reply
    1. NickC
      June 11, 2021

      GilesB, Because it’s all posturing and virtue signalling to the tune of the latest CAGW (global warming catastrophe) propaganda.

      Remember our own dear Prince of Wails who said that we had less than 100 months to save the planet from irreversible climate damage? That was in 2011. But 2017 came and went without the planet noticing his anguish. Then he was at it again in 2019, this time saying there was only 18 months to solve climate change. Two years later there is no catastrophe, but still plenty of bleats. He never learns.

      Scientific theories are tested by their ability to make accurate predictions. So far the global warming (CAGW) theory has failed this basic scientific test. And it’s only politicians, pundits, and professional agitators who pretend this doesn’t matter.

      Reply
      1. Fedupsoutherner
        June 11, 2021

        Nick C. And Andy.

        Reply
    2. glen cullen
      June 11, 2021

      Imported fossil fuel energy is GREEN

      Reply
      1. John Hatfield
        June 11, 2021

        +1

        Reply
      2. agricola
        June 11, 2021

        Only if you dye it.

        Reply
    3. Mitchel
      June 11, 2021

      Austria is part of the Nordstream consortium too.The former Austrian Foreign Minister has just been appointed to the board of Rosneft.The extension of Turkstream out of Turkey into the Balkans will also bring other EU members into the net.

      Reply
  5. agricola
    June 11, 2021

    You pose the questions we are all asking.where are the alternatve products that the buying public are tearing off the shelves. They do not exist, what there is is inadequate to the task and costs too much. It is the biggest open door for any political party that wishes to write a manifesto that makes economic sense to the electorate.

    Despite climate change the UK climate remains unreliable for holidays and the cost is astronomic when compared to Mediteranean alternatives.

    Our government have not said where all the electrical power is coming from and at what cost. If they incentivise with low or no tax on transport, where are the alternative tax sources. No sign that government is cutting its cloth for the new reality of their own creation.

    Hydrogen makes sense as a fuel, where is the push to produce it in economic volume. What answers do the fossil fuel companies like Shell and BP have to their pending demise under governments ride to hell in a handcart. Government imposition without electorates permission is as fated as the EU’s drive to all controlling governance of Europe. We do not buy it.

    Reply
    1. G Carty
      June 11, 2021

      I disagree that a hydrogen economy makes sense: first of all because most hydrogen we currently produce (for non-fuel purposes) is itself produced from fossil fuels! Using fossil fuels to produce hydrogen fuel is stark lunacy. as using the fossil fuels directly is far more efficient.

      And even if we were to produce hydrogen on a large scale without using fossil fuels (such as by using nuclear or renewable energy to electrolyse water, or using nuclear reactors to split water into its elements by thermochemical means) it still has serious drawbacks: its tiny molecules make plumbing an engineering nightmare and its density (in either gaseous or liquid state) is hugely lower than that of hydrocarbon fuels.

      Reply
  6. Shirley M
    June 11, 2021

    Everyone ignores the obvious, ie. human overpopulation. I don’t know what can be done to tackle this problem but I do know that nature requires a balance, and an overpopulation of anything will be cured by nature … eventually.

    Reply
    1. Everhopeful
      June 11, 2021

      Oh I think that problem is in hand.
      Definitely!

      Reply
    2. Dave Andrews
      June 11, 2021

      Overpopulation can be improved by girl’s education, so they have life choices other than just becoming mothers at an early age (which is fine if that is also their choice). The problem is with societies that suppress girls and deny them education and opportunities.
      Governments also don’t want a reducing population, as it becomes more difficult to support burgeoning national debt with fewer taxpayers.

      Reply
      1. zorro
        June 11, 2021

        Unless you have a great financial reset to make the debt disappear then you don’t so many people. I can’t think what they could do to potentially reduce the population over a short time, or maybe I can…..

        zorro

        Reply
  7. boffin
    June 11, 2021

    One wonders why governments so consistently turn a blind eye to the key underlying problem – the explosive growth of the human population in the last century, which is now proceeding unabated in ‘emerging’ nations.

    One suspects that a key underlying reason is the greater ease of control, by powerful elites, of masses which are kept underfed and undereducated, whilst supply of the resources – including energy – to which the masses aspire can never keep up with demand from expanding population.

    Whilst charity should begin at home, one feels that if we must shell out Foreign Aid, it might be much better aimed at providing poor women with greater ability to manage their fecundity than at dancing classes.

    Reply
    1. John C.
      June 11, 2021

      I think the reasons that Western governments don’t consider overpopulation is that they have absolutely no idea how to deal with it, and realise they would be on a hiding to nothing making any suggestions. So.. just ignore it.

      Reply
  8. J Mitchell
    June 11, 2021

    If carbon dioxide causes warming, why does the ice core data stretching back many millennia show carbon dioxide rise in the atmosphere lags temperature increase? The rise occurs relatively quickly In response to temperature increase. When temperature falls carbon dioxide takes much longer to fall.

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      June 11, 2021

      You’re 100% correct and that science not politics

      Reply
    2. G Carty
      June 11, 2021

      Isn’t that observation — that a warming climate will put more CO2 into the atmosphere (because less can be kept dissolved within warming oceans) — key to the entire climate change fears in the first place, because it implies that there exists a positive feedback loop which amplifies the initial warming caused by CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion?

      Reply
    3. NickC
      June 11, 2021

      J Mitchell, Indeed. Carbon dioxide does not “heat the planet” (JR’s claim). Apart from a tiny amount of residual geothermal heat, all our heat energy comes from the Sun. What CO2 does do, as a “greenhouse” gas, is act like atmospheric insulation. And CO2 does not work like a greenhouse either.

      Reply
      1. RichardP
        June 11, 2021

        +1

        Reply
      2. MiC
        June 11, 2021

        Explain Venus’s being hotter than Mercury, despite its being three times further from the Sun, then?

        Reply
        1. Alan Jutson
          June 11, 2021

          I think we can probably say that Venus is not suffering from manmade climate change.

          But would the greens agree. ?

          Reply
          1. hefner
            June 12, 2021

            What about the constituent gases of the atmosphere on these two planets? I wonder, could it be that one has a lot of CO2 and the other practically none?

        2. Lester
          June 11, 2021

          MiC

          Venus is hotter than Mercury because its atmosphere is thicker, nothing to do with its distance from the Sun

          Reply
        3. MiC
          June 11, 2021

          I think that we can probably say that you don’t want to give that simple explanation, which is that Venus has an atmosphere – mainly of carbon dioxide – but Mercury has none, and despite getting a solar radiative intensity of nine times Venus’s manages to have a cooler surface as a result.

          Reply
          1. Lester
            June 11, 2021

            MiC

            Are you suggesting that Venus’ and Earth’s atmosphere are comparable by any chance?

            Or that the atmosphere on earth will be comparable?

          2. Lester
            June 11, 2021

            MiC

            Are you suggesting that Venus’ and Earth’s atmosphere are comparable by any chance?

        4. NickC
          June 11, 2021

          Martin, How much warmer would Venus be if its CO2 atmosphere increased from 96% to 96.01%?

          Reply
          1. hefner
            June 12, 2021

            At 96%, all CO2 absorption bands are saturated, and given the prevalent temperatures there, the infrared spectrum is already shifted to wavelengths shorter than on the Earth (the most important band is around 4 microns compared to 15 microns on Earth).
            So going from 96 to 96.01% does not make much difference.

  9. Dave Andrews
    June 11, 2021

    In the UK, the immigrant influx requires housing – requiring the burning of fossils fuels to bake the brick and burn the lime, plus further burning of fossil fuels to provide winter warmth. The loss of green spaces in favour of housing estates is a further consideration.
    Ending immigration must surely be a central plank of the government’s green policy.

    Reply
    1. beresford
      June 11, 2021

      +1. In the words of the late Spike Milligan, ‘Copulation equals population equals pollution’. Yet our rulers continue with their insane policy of mass immigration at the behest of the United Nations. We could have the Britain the people want, where a modest number of free lives are led surrounded by new forests which absorb any CO2 emissions, or the future of the elite where a vast worker class with no common culture or heritage are cooped in high-rise rabbit hutches, latter day Towers of Babel.

      Reply
      1. James1
        June 11, 2021

        O/t, wondering if Mrs VDL had sausages for breakfast this morning.

        Reply
        1. Alan Jutson
          June 11, 2021

          Probably not, but she may be getting some of Cornwalls finest shell fish in the next couple of days !

          You know the fish that the EU have said has been dragged out of our unclean waters !

          Reply
          1. Fedupsoutherner
            June 11, 2021

            And perhaps English sausages which she’s happy to deprive N Ireland of.

    2. jerry
      June 11, 2021

      @Dave Andrews; In the UK, the indigenous and some sections of our long standing immigrant population also require housing, requiring the burning of fossils fuels to bake the brick and burn the lime etc. Your point being what, that adult children, their children, should ideally live with their parents and grandparents in single households rather than being allowed to buy a house of their own?

      The housing needs for the current immigrant ‘influx’ is a mere foot-note on the page detailing the UK’s current housing needs.

      Reply
      1. NickC
        June 11, 2021

        Not so, Jerry. There are 9.4 million people in the UK not born here (ONS, 2017 data). Even you can see that if 14% of the population returned home, the ability of UK natives to feed and house ourselves using this country’s own resources would be much enhanced. And our “emissions” would reduce by 14% at a stroke as well.

        Reply
        1. jerry
          June 11, 2021

          @NickC; You miss understand the ONS data.

          Reply
        2. Peter Parsons
          June 11, 2021

          How many families would your suggestion split up?

          Reply
    3. Lifelogic
      June 11, 2021

      People are always confusing cause and effect (politicians often do it on purpose).

      People in ill-health earn less so is it that being in ill-health reduces you ability to work or having less income makes you it.

      Married people are less likely to break up than unmarried couples – so is it that Marriage keeps them together or that those un-married were less happy with their relationship so did not marry?

      But when there is a lag of circa 800 years it is hard to believe the earth just got warmer in anticipation of later higher CO2 levels in some magically way?

      Reply
      1. Lifelogic
        June 11, 2021

        make you ill not “it”

        Reply
      2. Lifelogic
        June 11, 2021

        JR says “ Today practically all of us accept carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which will heat the planet if more is produced and nothing else changes.”

        Indeed well worded and this is surely correct but there is no “climate emergency”, CO2 is not even the main greenhouse gas and millions of other factors are at play many not remotely predictable. Also CO2 will not push up temperatures to dangerous levels as the effect diminishes as concentrations increase and other negative feedbacks arise. Anyway the government solutions do not even work just in CO2 terms and real world cooperation will happen anyway.

        Reply
    4. G Carty
      June 11, 2021

      I guess the reason why well-known green activists in Western countries tend to be pro-immigration is because they have a left-wing “social justice” bent that is independent of their environmental concerns.

      While from a strict energy consumption perspective it would make sense to discourage Global South people from moving to the Global North (for example because heating is a really big user of energy), most activists want to make the Global North bear overwhelmingly with the cost of dealing with climate change, given that it was the Global North that overwhemingly benefited from the combustion of fossil fuels (which is causing the climate change) in the first place.

      It is the case though that there also exist right-wing greens who want to save the planet at the expense of the Global South: Etc ed

      Reply
    5. X-Tory
      June 11, 2021

      Yes – we are being invaded by literally hundreds of illegal immigrants every single day. Until Priti Useless actually DOES something – rather than just talk – to both stop this invasion and also reverse the flow (so that we deport all those who have come illegally in, say, the last 10 years) then very litle else we do will matter.

      Reply
    6. Iain Moore
      June 11, 2021

      Agreed, I am waiting for Boris Johnson to join up his policies and announce to the world that they are going to call a halt to mass immigration as it cannot be made to fit with all his greenery . May be he is saving that policy for his Glasgow COP shindig when he will make this announcement. Or may be not, for we are expected to accept two contradictory polices, one of puritanical privations for climate change, and another of ‘yeah we have loads of spare resources come on over’. The contradictions really expose the Marxist agenda behind it all, the greenery was a way of them telling us how we are allowed to lives out lives, and the mass immigration was always their policy to unpick the identity of the nation state.

      The BBC had reporters fly out to OZ to give us a minute by minute low down of the forest fires they had, all due to climate change. They don’t seem too keen to report on the 37 year record cold spell they are currently suffering, with meters of snow in Sydney and reports of snow in Brisbane.

      Reply
  10. Nig l
    June 11, 2021

    An excellent summary and precisely why I haven’t acquired the necessary items. They are too expensive or not fit for purpose. However prices are coming down and there is some extraordinary progress being made in battery technology for instance.

    The experts do not have an answer because there isn’t one yet.

    Think what HMG could have achieved by using the 100 billion or so to subsidise solar voltaics for all of us. Incidentally I see that the cost of a station has gone up even before it has been put out to tender, what’s a casual 100 million between friends.

    And in other news I rarely agree with Theresa May but she is spot on about the governments travel policies or lack of them. The DT recently shredded Shapps total dissembling and policy u turns.

    A global Britain open for business. I think not. European countries opening to those who have had vaccinations is making us a laughing stock.

    I accept coming back from a country I should prove I haven’t got Covid although why I should have, being vaccinated and not getting it when it was at its most rampant, is beyond me, but if I am to quarantine, therefore being away from people for ten days, why do I need two further tests? Symptoms will show in that time or not.

    It is illogical rubbish with no justification other than to punish or deter. Communist Russia would have been very proud.

    Reply
    1. Lifelogic
      June 11, 2021

      You say “there is some extraordinary progress being made in battery technology for instance” perhaps you have some inside knowledge, but what I have seen is more like gentle & incremental progress.

      They are still very expensive & heavy per KWH of capacity, are fairly slow to charge up and still rather life limited. So high depreciation of the battery, limited range and expensive & rather short lived cars. Oh and after the energy used to mine the raw materials and build the battery and cars plus the energy needed to charge them they save no net C02 anyway. Keeping your old car is almost invariably better for CO2 .

      Reply
    2. jerry
      June 11, 2021

      @NigI; Your comments about CV19 does nothing but prove why the govt is correct to instruct people to either self isolate or quarantine and be tested upon their return from ‘unsafe’ countries, even if fully vaccinated with the two doses, at least for now (this summer) as there are still a sizeable number of people who have yet to have any vaccine dose, and many more who are yet to have their second dose, and that includes teenagers.

      The vaccines do not stop you catching CV19, they just (hopefully) prevent you becoming serious ill or being contagious, but none of the current vaccines are 100% effective — meaning you could otherwise socialise on your return with another person, you asymptomatic but contagious, they one of the 10% or so for who the vaccine is not effective. 10% of the UK population, even if spread evenly through out the UK, is still enough to cause capacity problems within the NHS that will adversely affect non CV19 patients and their treatments.

      Post vaccination, we need to learn to live with CV19, not ignore it, there might well be things we did before that we will not be able to do in the near future or perhaps ever again, much will likely depend on effective post infection treatments.

      Reply
      1. Lester
        June 11, 2021

        Jerry

        Every virus that has ever existed is still out there, we have developed Herd immunity

        Reply
        1. jerry
          June 12, 2021

          @Lester; There is no such thing as herd immunity for the common cold nor Flu, so why do you think herd immunity can exist for CV19?

          Reply
          1. Wessexboy
            June 12, 2021

            Jerry, I think you’ll find that the common cold and ‘flu decimated native ‘Americans’ when Europeans arrived, happily for the Europeans they had some natural (herd) immunity to the worst effects….

    3. Mark
      June 11, 2021

      Solar is already a pain for the grid with around 13GW installed, producing on average at about 10% of that, but on sunny summer days in the middle of the day perhaps 8-9GW. The peak is awkward to handle, as other generation must be cut back to allow it, and then ramped up again as the sun goes down. Of course, in winter when demand is highest, solar contributes nothing at all because it is already dark. The problems this was causing were enough to see an end to most of the solar subsidies, and installations have fallen back to next to nothing. Meanwhile it has transpired that “cheap” solar panels in fact depend on slave Uighur labour, which is perhaps not something we should be supporting.

      Reply
  11. Old Albion
    June 11, 2021

    The whole thing is a farce. Driven by a global temperature rise of 1* Centigrade over more than the last 100 years and the whining of a silly schoolgirl.

    Reply
    1. Everhopeful
      June 11, 2021

      +1

      Reply
    2. Lifelogic
      June 11, 2021

      +1 and foolish virtue signalling politicians with PPE degrees or similar thinking there are votes in this insane new religion/agenda.

      Reply
    3. Jim Whitehead
      June 11, 2021

      OA and LL, +1, exactly !!!!

      Reply
    4. RichardP
      June 11, 2021

      +1

      Reply
    5. John C.
      June 11, 2021

      Absolutely right.

      Reply
    6. glen cullen
      June 11, 2021

      +1

      Reply
    7. Jim Whitehead
      June 12, 2021

      OA, +1
      Accuracy with brevity! Love it and applaud it.

      Reply
  12. David L
    June 11, 2021

    The EV is still a young and fast-changing technology. Today’s State-of-the-Art is tomorrow’s old hat. Your shiny EV that cost you thousands is likely to become worthless as the rapid changes sweep in. I’ll stick with ICE until there is no choice or I pass away.

    Reply
    1. Know-Dice
      June 11, 2021

      Two more reasons not to go EV…
      1. Tend to be heavier than their ICE counterpart and use more tyres per mile (and presumably wear out the road more).
      2. Batteries can get damaged after even a small bump with the associated higher cost or repair.

      Reply
      1. Lifelogic
        June 11, 2021

        Indeed my foolish friend had an £80k Tesla written off after a very minor bump plus it cost him 20k for two home charge stations. Range limits, high costs and the fact that they produce more CO2 than keeping your old jalopy. Reasons to buy one are err – virtue signalling that you have more money than sense perhaps?

        Reply
    2. Lifelogic
      June 11, 2021

      Indeed, as will the sensible Ann Whiddecombe it seems (on Any Questions last week – at least they had one sensible panellist this weeks).

      Gillian Keegan on Question Time last night said – we have followed JCVI advice and so far they have been spot on.

      So obviously she has not bothered to compute all the extra deaths caused by JCVI& Gov. abject failure to adjust for real gender Covid risk (which was blatant, anti-male discrimination) in the vaccination priority – it is very likely to be over 1000.

      Reply
    3. glen cullen
      June 11, 2021

      I actual like some of the EVs in the marketplace – however I believe in freedom of choice more

      Reply
      1. Lifelogic
        June 11, 2021

        I have two perfectly serviceable old cars a golf conv. and seven seater Volvo (worth perhaps £6k for both) so why on earth would I spend £6o k + on two new (limited range and rather inferior) EV cars. Car that would with manufacture actually increase overall CO2 production?

        Reply
        1. glen cullen
          June 11, 2021

          +1

          Reply
      2. G Carty
        June 11, 2021

        Didn’t Tesla become so profitable largely because they marketed EVs on the grounds of performance rather than environmental benefit?

        Reply
        1. glen cullen
          June 11, 2021

          Tesla Inc isn’t profitable: Elon Musk business model is to collect money pre order/sale ($721 million) & subsidy ($1.6 billion) and use those funds to purchase other tech stock/companies….and its made him a billionaire – But whether Tesla Inc itself is profitable is debatable, without state subsidy Tesla Inc would have made a net loss 2020

          Reply
  13. Gordon Bennett
    June 11, 2021

    People are yet to realise the personal cost. It may be a case of “the world will burn if they don’t pay that cost” but it is going to burn anyway. Chinese and Indians aren’t going to slow down and have yet to go through their rich phase before they can get to the Disneyfied world view and sentimentalism about animals and the environment.

    We had it right in the UK. We opted for small families and a smaller population but were denied it by politicians who knew better. Products were made at home and built to last and made to be repaired easily but we were told that our products were a crap idea and fridges that broke down every 3-5 years were better. We also took on personal credit which enabled rampant consumption without earning the right to do so first which decoupled the gold standard of hard cash and the brakes it put on waste.

    Reply
    1. John C.
      June 11, 2021

      It’s good to read basic common sense.

      Reply
  14. Cynic
    June 11, 2021

    No one I know or meet talk about global warming. They do not appear to find it a matter that concerns them. Governments should limit themselves to real, solvable problems rather than chasing after chimeras.

    Reply
    1. Nig l
      June 11, 2021

      I guess that’s because you and your friends are all a hundred years old and will be long gibe by the time it matters,

      Reply
      1. Nig l
        June 11, 2021

        Long ‘gone’

        Reply
    2. Lifelogic
      June 11, 2021

      So many better ways to spend these £Trillions than a war on largely beneficial co2 plant food. Ways that would save very many lives almost immediately. See “How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place” by Bjørn Lomborg for example.

      The idea that atmospheric CO2 concentration is some kind of world thermostat is moronic. Millions of other things also affect the climate many not even knowable or predictable. Anyway the proposed “solutions” do not work and world cooperation would also needed and this will not happen anyway. So three problems with their mad & misguided agenda.

      Reply
    3. Andy
      June 11, 2021

      Maybe you meet the wrong people?

      Reply
      1. John C.
        June 11, 2021

        Absolutely. Wrong sort of chaps, Andy. Probably, oh dear, old.

        Reply
    4. glen cullen
      June 11, 2021

      Good point – but the government survey will say ‘Your grandchildren could die due to climate change?’….most people don’t talk about global warming unless prompted by the news media or politics

      Reply
    5. RichardP
      June 11, 2021

      Totally agree with your comment Cynic.
      The Government should concentrate on real problems such as the possibility of the EU turning off our electricity supply.

      Reply
  15. MFD
    June 11, 2021

    Well said Sir! The big problem is the green supporters are quoting theory. Heat pumps are not a solution for housing still in use, some built in the seventeenth century like the Black and White housing in many villages all over England. The heat loss of these Listed Buildings is greater than any present heat pump . It will run continuously with no heat gain, hardly a green solution.
    With other things mentioned, I have never used an aeroplane as I do not like flying. Peoples lives need certainty, not change that may fail

    Reply
    1. lifelogic
      June 11, 2021

      Retrofit heat pumps in old building is very expensive indeed, inconvenient and rather inefficient, far better and far cheaper best to wear an extra jumper, thermals, get an electric blanket and if feeling flush heat one or two rooms only in the winter. Plus electric cost much more than gas even with the COP heat gains.

      Reply
  16. Lifelogic
    June 11, 2021

    You ask – How will governments gain popular buy in for their green revolution? – They won’t and the more people realise how vastly expensive, inconvenience and totally pointless this agenda is the political opposition will grow. It will be the poll tax on steroids.

    More to the point is when will this government come to its senses and abandon this unscientific, idiotic and insanely expensive agenda? Cowardly Government ministers keep saying ‘we have to more to net zero’ as if it were not a government choice. No this idiotic, scientifically and economically illiterate government is forcing it on to the nation but want to pretend they have too.

    Even if you accept the CO2 religion it is very clear the government’s “ solutions” proposed EVs, Wind Powers, PV solar, heat pumps … will make no or no significant difference to world CO2 levels at all let alone to climate. It will just export jobs, and economic activity with the CO2 they produce.

    I see they have adopted the usual religious approach of trying to brainwash young immature minds. A form of child abuse in my opinion. See all the COP26 “education” propaganda packs the Gov. have produced with tax payers money to delude pupils and teachers. This child abuse produces gives produces people like Greta, greencrap pressure groups or worse still it even incubates religious terrorists.

    Reply
    1. Everhopeful
      June 11, 2021

      + several million

      Reply
    2. Ed M
      June 11, 2021

      As a Capitalist, I want Capitalism to survive. But there is clearly something dangerously wrong going on in the environment and it is related to capitalism. But both the greenies and their political foes need to take a deep breath. We can have capitalism / strong, vibrant economy AND a healthy environment. Some think they are mutually exclusive – this is a HERESY. But in order to get this balance we have to first accept there is a problem. And then use science / technology + calm + courage + the spirit of adventure like Sir Francis Chichester to find a solution. Human beingd are amazing! We are smart. But we also have to accept reality and be brave in meeting the challenges as they come.

      Reply
      1. Ed M
        June 11, 2021

        The greenies want to rape our minds with fear and negativity whilst their political foes are happy to rape the environment for quick, easy profit. Both positions are unsustainable, boring + tragic. Real kings – real political leaders – want to protect jobs / the economy civilisation but at same time the environment. It’s possible. But requires a warrior spirit, a deep interest in science and a love of life where people love nature and the environment and not just acquiring and spending money. And if we destroy Mother Nature, then we lose everthing eventually and future generations will curse us for being selfish, boring and cowardly.

        Reply
        1. NickC
          June 11, 2021

          Ed M, A “capitalist” does not want to “protect” jobs.

          Reply
          1. Ed M
            June 12, 2021

            @Nick,
            You’re right.
            But a capitalist can also be more than just a capitalist. He might be in his king archetype (in Jungian sense) who sets up a company to make money but also because he enjoys the work and has always wanted to be someone who creates jobs for others (like the Quakers). So a mixture of motives.
            But you are right, capitalism itself, isn’t interested in preserving jobs. But that capitalists in business aren’t necessarily just confined by their capitalism either.
            And this applies even more to politicians who support capitalism but are more than just capitalists in their politics.

          2. Ed M
            June 12, 2021

            We need capitalists who are also kings (in Jungian sense) not just pure capitalists otherwise you end up with a pure rat race as opposed to a kingdom (or civilisation or a nation rich in other things – not just money – although money can facilitate such things such as the medieval merchants who patronised the arts with their wealth and built beautiful cathedrals and cities etc and set up Catholic work guilds etc and Quakers who looked after their workers so well etc).

          3. Ed M
            June 12, 2021

            If you want to create a great civilisation or nation rich in culture and sport and patriotism and public duty and a strong, stable economy (all of which make a nation wealthier in the long-term anyway) then, yes, capitalism is a key tool in this but not the only one (you also need the values and goals of the king in Jungian sense and more) and if it is all just about capitalism then the nation will eventually implode into chaos – as the desire to make money isn’t enough to make individuals happy and to glue a nation together properly.

          4. Ed M
            June 12, 2021

            Lastly, Nick, British Conservatism needs to embrace, more and more, the psychology of the GREAT Jung. Jung wasn’t perfect but if we want to create a strong and rich nation / civilisation (in every sense: strong stable economy, strong men and women and family life, strong arts and sport and nature and architecture, strong sense of patriotism and public duty, strong sense of people taking responsibility for themselves instead of relying on the state) then we need to focus a lot more on him, as his psychology is rooted in the best values of the Greco-Roman world as well as the world of Judaeo-Christianity.
            Yes, we support capitalism, but capitalism is one of many tools we need to create a great nation with a strong, long-term, stable economy. Relying on capitalism only leads to a rat race and rats end up destroying everything.

    3. Lifelogic
      June 11, 2021

      An excellent podcast interview:-

      Lockdowns are ‘the single biggest public health mistake in history’, says top scientist
      Speaking to The Telegraph’s Planet Normal podcast, Prof Jay Bhattacharya warned of the ‘enormous collateral consequences’

      Reply
      1. Jim Whitehead
        June 11, 2021

        Of course it’s idiotic, but look at the quality of leaders at the helm.
        My good friends in France have been able to drive during ‘covid curfew’ hours. My word! Aren’t they taking a big risk . . . . What Rot !!!
        And these goons at the helm are seriously convening to ‘deal with the problem’ of Climate whilst still demented by Covid hysteria . . . . .
        Childish pretence and posturing.

        Reply
        1. zorro
          June 11, 2021

          What an odd bunch with their elbow banging and 2 metre jives. Really bizarre with their “build back better” lexicon, they sound like some weird religious cult.

          zorro

          Reply
  17. MPC
    June 11, 2021

    There is no climate crisis and arguments that there is one are not falsifiable

    Reply
    1. Everhopeful
      June 11, 2021

      +1

      Reply
    2. glen cullen
      June 11, 2021

      I just don’t see or feel it….in my 60 years the weather here hasn’t changed, the seasons are the same, the tides are the same, the daylight times are the same, the temperatures are the same maybe sometimes a little bit hotter and sometimes a little bit colder the amount of rainfall is the same….just look out of your window nothing has changed !

      Reply
      1. glen cullen
        June 11, 2021

        Check for yourself at the Met Office – https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/historic-station-data
        …and if nothing has changed why are we going though the farce of climate change

        Reply
      2. Jim Whitehead
        June 11, 2021

        Simply too true, what can a politician aspire to change unless there’s a perceived crisis? So glad that there is an advanced country where we never get to know who’s in charge, viz. Switzerland.
        I sure wish that we all knew fewer politicians.

        Reply
      3. Fedupsoutherner
        June 11, 2021

        Glen. That’s exactly what I say when I’m walking the dog. Everything is the same as usual. Sometimes things are a little earlier coming out and other years later. We get floods at the same time each year and the weather is variable as normal. This climate change thing is totally bonkers.

        Reply
        1. graham1946
          June 11, 2021

          The one change I have noticed in my garden this year is that the daffodils lasted twice as long as usual because we had a very cold spring with late frosts. Now the damned things refuse to die down and I am stuck for planting out my summer plants. This global warming sure has had an effect in reducing the spring temperatures.

          Reply
  18. MiC
    June 11, 2021

    Germany will continue with fossil-fuelled power generation for some time, because after the Fukushima disaster they correctly realised that nuclear power always carries a non-zero risk of rendering a large part of Europe uninhabitable if such a thing happened here.

    The Japanese were extremely fortunate, that when their coastal plant suffered multiple meltdowns the winds were out to the Pacific for almost the whole time, otherwise a large part of their country would now be uninhabitable.

    Such an escape for land-locked densely populated European countries would be impossible.

    The UK seems set to continue with this madness on the other hand.

    Reply
    1. None of the above
      June 11, 2021

      Ours are being built to a totally different design.

      Reply
    2. graham1946
      June 11, 2021

      Germany doesn’t get tsunamis. We had Chernobyl due to the totally poor design and maintenance by USSR (not even a covering dome over the reactor) and some of the radiation did indeed reach our shores. However, your contention that large areas of Europe become uninhabitable after the worst event possible simply is not true. It did not happen, just a relatively small part of Russia is locked down.

      Reply
    3. Mark
      June 11, 2021

      It’s fortunate that Europe doesn’t sit on the edge of the Ring of Fire earthquake zone. So the chance of a Fukushima size earthquake in Europe is zero until the tectonic plates have done a lot of shifting over at least the next 200 million years. Meanwhile, the Fukushima plant was the only one that was lost in the earthquake, and that because of an easily corrected design element – the location of some pumps.

      Reply
  19. J Bush
    June 11, 2021

    IMO they should start by proving the democratic transparency they claim to work to and release the “G7 Finance Minister and Central Bank Governors Communique” to the general public. Have a public debate, followed by a referendum to establish if this is the direction the electorate really want to go.

    To date this communique has not been released anywhere on MSM.

    Reply
  20. Lifelogic
    June 11, 2021

    I listened to Angela Leadsom on Politics Live (Thursday) a former energy secretary talking on electric cars etc. the woman did not have a clue. Being the BBC they had all four people and the chair all on the same (wrong) side of the argument. Might it not be better if Energy & Transport Secretaries had a clue about energy economics, practicalities and energy engineering rather than being dim deluded politics graduates or similar? Peter Lilley & Matt Ridley for example.

    Reply
  21. Sharon
    June 11, 2021

    There is no pulling power of the green revolution because it’s impractical to expect people to choose to be poor and have sub optimal alternatives. That’s why it all has to be ban/tax things to high heaven to force people ‘to comply’!

    Not a good look, but they know better…at least, they think they do- as with a lot of current decision making, it’s all group think and then the shutters fall down on any further thinking or ideas!

    Reply
    1. G Carty
      June 11, 2021

      Exactly — because pretty much all the things that make life worth living require energy, people won’t willingly reduce their energy consumption.

      Perhaps instead of trying to reduce energy consumption we should concentrate on increasing our energy production from non-emitting sources? Nuclear energy is the main one, and we should try to raise awareness of how the anti-nuclear-energy movement was built on fossil fuel money, such as how the Rockefeller Foundation suborned Hermann Muller in 1945, and how in the late 1960s oil interests helped found Friends of the Earth: the first openly anti-nuclear environmental group.

      Reply
  22. David Cooper
    June 11, 2021

    JR: “We also accept that advanced country governments intend to take people on their railway track to net zero as soon as they can.” May I suggest substituting “accept” with “acknowledge”, and adding “unless they are fought tooth and nail, which they jolly well should be”?

    Good product examples – may I add in context that we did not need government “nudging” to give up our typewriters for PCs, our VHS videos for DVDs, and our brick sized mobile phones for smartphones. We bought the products that were not only better but also reasonably priced. Lessons?

    Reply
  23. oldtimer
    June 11, 2021

    Too much of the green agenda is the product of exaggerated propaganda based on dodgy data. It is driven by special interest groups seeking to impose their view of the world on everyone else. Some politicians saw carbon taxes as a new way to raise money for their favourite projects as well as a way to change behaviour. The propaganda has worked to the point that, for some, it has become the new religion. But the new religion faces a problem. Much of what it demands costs more, is less efficient, less convenient and less available than the existing products and services it seeks to replace. Time is not on its side.

    Reply
  24. nota#
    June 11, 2021

    The survey appears to highlight ‘it is not me it is them’, followed by stop the others the ‘plebs’ buying so I can still consume. Then not forgetting all things should be subsidised by Government so that those that can afford stuff gets subsidised by those that cant.

    Successive Governments have convinced the populous they have money, as they are in perpetual election mode and need the votes and to be seen as personally popular. Occasionally it gets mentioned that its taxpayer money, but then that money always comes from the other guy.

    You could comfortably reason that it is deceit by the Political Class/Elite, in their personal need to be loved that is behind all of societies woes.

    Reply
  25. jerry
    June 11, 2021

    “Today practically all of us accept carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which will heat the planet if more is produced and nothing else changes.”

    Well yes, repeat a lie long enough and it will become the accepted ‘fact’, a bit like TINA was in the 1980s, and the so called Post-war settlement before that… Accepting ones fate and believing in a cause are two totally different things!

    Reply
    1. Bryan Harris
      June 11, 2021

      +

      Reply
  26. nota#
    June 11, 2021

    From todays MsM, it would appear that the Dons on strike at Oriel Collage is simply the ‘Left’ making a political statement to attack the Government and freedoms. No problem with them having views, the problem is they are taking educational trust and taxpayer money and using it to make political statements. their life gets funded by those they attack. If they really meant it they would hand back the money they receive

    The taxpayer should never be asked to fund political movements.

    Reply
    1. Shirley M
      June 11, 2021

      I find their protest really objectionable. That statue has not being forced upon them against their will. They freely accepted a job in a building where the statue was already present. By all means they could ask for it to be removed, but to blackmail with threats is reprehensible.

      Reply
  27. Oldwulf
    June 11, 2021

    Neil Oliver on Twitter:

    “I want those who preach to live the life first. I want politicians and celebs foreswearing flights and all travel powered by fossil fuels; heat pumps in their homes; plant based diets, the lot. Do it from now – lead the way – and I will listen. I really will.”

    Reply
  28. turboterrier
    June 11, 2021

    Have to face the facts Sir John the people do not believe all the doom and gloom scenario presented by the top team. Too much is opinions on computer programming, organisations and individuals all pushing their own private even in some cases secret agendas. What they are doing is enacting the children’s tale of the emperor’s new clothes. The critical masses do not trust or believe them.

    Reply
    1. zorro
      June 11, 2021

      Doom and gloom scenarios perpetuated by questionable statistics. Now what does that remind us of?

      zorro

      Reply
  29. Everhopeful
    June 11, 2021

    Why is it necessary to terrify the population into buying “green”via a virus?
    Why the coercion?
    Consumerism has always worked.
    The globalists feel the need to speed things up? After all it took over a century for the car to become ubiquitous. Computers more like twenty years?
    So what’s the rush?
    Is the old, worn-out system that delivered so much to them finally crashing about their greedy ears?

    Reply
    1. SecretPeople
      June 11, 2021

      🙂 +1
      There is a sense of desperation to it, isn’t there.

      Reply
      1. Everhopeful
        June 11, 2021

        +1

        Reply
    2. G Carty
      June 11, 2021

      The coercion is because people will not voluntarily lower their living standards: same reason why rationing and other coercive laws were introduced during World War II, in that case to allow economic resources to be diverted from consumer production to war industries.

      Reply
      1. Everhopeful
        June 11, 2021

        +1

        Reply
  30. Nig l
    June 11, 2021

    And in other news Hancock conveniently forgets how many nurses etc plus care homes were short of PPE and regrets bitterly following the scientific advice re lockdowns whilst he and the rest now use the scientific advice as the excuse for our travel policy. Do these people ever see the lunacy of what they say?

    As an exercise in dancing on a pin head to avoid blame it was a political master class and utterly shameless. The court of public opinion not to mention families with people who died through Covid in care homes, knows otherwise.

    Boris preaching on climate change whilst taking a jet rather than the train to Cornwall. Zero quarantine for the whole G7 circus again all using jets whilst the rest of us suffer. Truly the stuff of Animal Farm.

    Reply
  31. graham1946
    June 11, 2021

    ‘Germany, a keen green advocate etc. plans to continue with coal based electricity into the next decade’

    And there in that statement must be the lie that global warming is caused by CO2. Germany, one of the world’s foremost manufacturing nations, must have the true facts and still considers there is no rush and is still building the filthiest coal generating sets ever known. If not, they and the EU are the most irresponsible people on the planet who have the nous to do something, but apparently don’t see the need.

    Reply
    1. G Carty
      June 11, 2021

      Look like the Germans too are more into virtue signalling than anything else: if they were truly concerned about CO2 emissions they wouldn’t be closing down their nuclear reactors!

      Reply
      1. graham1946
        June 11, 2021

        Nor would they be planning to import more Russian gas, whilst the UK is going to ban gas boilers. You could not make this stuff up.

        Reply
  32. Roy Grainger
    June 11, 2021

    When the time comes we’ll vote for a political party that doesn’t want to force us to throw away our boilers. This might well be not one of the current parties.

    “Many people still want to fly abroad for a holiday as soon as covid rules allow”. Covid rules already allow it actually, it is just the extra government-imposed costs of testing that are a disincentive to the less well-off.

    Reply
  33. Know-Dice
    June 11, 2021

    The problem I have with the “Green Revolution” is that there are too many sticks and not enough carrots…

    For many years we hear from local councils about blocking off “rat runs”, the question to be asked is “why do people use rat runs?” and generally the answer is simply because the main roads are slow and blocked.
    So, I say to the council why are you not spending your efforts on positive solutions like making main routes free running, rather than the negative “lets just block this route”.

    This is the question that Oxford residents should be asking of their council with regard to the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) scheme they have implemented.

    Reply
  34. Philip P.
    June 11, 2021

    I wonder why you think the question in your title still matters, Sir John.

    Hasn’t the last year or so shown that the public can be brainwashed and coerced in the direction our political masters want for us?

    ‘Will the public buy it?’ Sure, just let the – now massively government-funded – media get to work on them. We haven’t yet seen the full force of what can be unleashed on us to make us fall into line with the green agenda.

    I don’t see this changing as long as your party in government funds a Xxxxxx psychologist to tell us how to lead our lives.

    Reply
  35. David Brown
    June 11, 2021

    A good evaluation of the current position.
    I mentioned in the past about the amount of CO2 that sea grass can remove.
    A part of me thinks that we should carefully examine the natural environment around us eg the sea. Then seek to establish the best natural ways of reducing CO2.
    Ok we know about tree planting, but specific Types of moss and sea grasses can remove significant amounts of C02. We just need to expand on this.
    In doing so there is a balance between fast removal of fossil fuels and natural ways of reducing CO2

    Reply
    1. Cynic
      June 11, 2021

      CO2 was reaching dangerously low levels. It doesn’t need decreasing – plants need it and we need plants for survival.

      Reply
      1. MiC
        June 11, 2021

        Slowing, even stopping an increase is not the same as a decrease.

        Only the first is being seriously considered.

        Reply
  36. P. Else
    June 11, 2021

    Pardon me but CO2 heating the planet is very far from being accepted universally. The facts do not support the theory of man made global warming and, in fact, the climate appears to be cooling rapidly.
    Add to that the physical impossibilty of the “Green Revolution” makes the whole idea absurd. There is not the mining capacity to supply the materials for all the solar panels and electric cars even if you ignore the immense quantites of fossil fuels needed to create them.
    It is a total scam just like all the others we are expected to believe and tolerate.

    Reply
    1. John C.
      June 11, 2021

      Correct. And I see Sir John has tried out the old trick : don’t argue the point any more, just say “everybody now agrees there is global warming and CO2 is responsible.” Count me out for starters.

      Reply Try reading what I wrote. Not as you report.

      Reply
    2. MFD
      June 11, 2021

      +1

      Reply
    3. zorro
      June 11, 2021

      You are assuming that capacity should relate to the current world population…. They don’t.

      zorro

      Reply
    4. Jim Whitehead
      June 12, 2021

      P. Else, +1

      Reply
  37. None of the Above
    June 11, 2021

    Questions for the Government:-

    Long before the existence of Homo Sapiens (let alone the industrial revolution) why has the temperature on Earth varied over millennia?
    Why has temperature varied inconsistently and independently of Carbon Dioxide levels?
    Livestock produces large quantities of methane gas because of the vegetation in their diet, what might be different if that vegetation is consumed by people?
    If Carbon Dioxide is significantly reduced, what will happen to plant life?
    If plant life struggles to thrive, what will happen to life on Earth?

    Reply
  38. Andy
    June 11, 2021

    You’re right on one thing. Most people do not intend to rip out the gas boiler and replace it with a heat pump. But then most people also do not intend to rip out their gas boiler and replace it with another gas boiler either. Boilers are something you replace when you have to – not something you want to replace. Nobody talks joyously of going on a shopping trip to buy a new boiler they way they talk about getting a new iPhone. It is a chore, not a pleasure.

    But eventually your boiler will break and you’ll have to replace it anyway – and that’s when we need you to get a heat pump instead.

    There are an estimated 22m domestic boilers in the UK – and around 1.5m boilers are sold every year. Just by natural churn virtually all of our boilers could be replaced by 2050. Even if you bought a new boiler yesterday it is unlikely to still be working properly 28 years from now. And your next purchase should be a heat pump.

    So how do we make people pick heat pumps next time around? Well, like electric cars the cost of a heat pump is front loaded. They’re more expensive than boilers to buy and they may require additional alterations to your home – bigger radiators, better insulation, under floor heating etc. But heat pumps are also significantly cheaper to run. Maintenance costs are also low or zero – unlike with boilers. Over their lifetimes the costs are quite similar – but government policy is needed to help with these higher front loaded costs. There are also planning issues in some cases which government could resolve – and clearly different solutions are needed for flats.

    Despite all of this – although most of you don’t realise it yet – your next boiler will probably be a heat pump.

    Reply
    1. Peter2
      June 11, 2021

      How are people supposed to afford £30,000 instead of £5,000?
      Fine for you wealthies.
      Not so easy for the other 99%

      Reply
      1. glen cullen
        June 11, 2021

        Agree

        Reply
    2. Alan Jutson
      June 11, 2021

      Andy

      Surely just increase the insulation of your home is the most logical way of saving yourself money, thus using less fuel (of any Sort) and it is a permanent solution, if done correctly.

      The Governments so called “green grant policy” simply was not effective enough due to its very simplistic and impractical set up to ever work effectively for the majority to be able to take advantage of it.

      Owners can of course still pay for it themselves, as I have done over the years, but insulation is not really a vanity project for most people, as very often it is unseen.

      Reply
    3. David Brown
      June 11, 2021

      The option on new housing developments is to have large industrial ground source heat pumps that serve many houses. Or better still apartments, and householders pay an annual usage. This is the old East European system that used gas and coal fired central boilers, this system is still in use in countries like Romania.
      Ideally we need to adopt the old communist system for heating, and build more apartments not houses. There is a slow move away from house construction to apartment construction and this will change the built environment in 10 years time, along with a total revolution in the way this country is governed.

      Reply
      1. graham1946
        June 11, 2021

        We tried the high rise apartments idea in the sixties. They are today’s slums and are being replaced. Most people are not animals, they don’t want to bee cooped up and most long for a bit of garden. Look what happened in the lockdown – people in apartments going mad, mental health issues only now becoming apparent in children as well as adults.

        Reply
      2. Mark
        June 11, 2021

        I’ve a feeling you relish the idea of a Communist system. Having lived in Communist countries, I am not as easily impressed by that idea. Heating in blocks of flats ws poor if you lived on a lower floor – heat rises. Warm on the upper floors, to the point that the only way of controlling it was to open the windows and heat the urban environment even when it was -10C or colder outside.

        Reply
      3. zorro
        June 11, 2021

        Full spectrum communism eh?

        zorro

        Reply
      4. Peter2
        June 11, 2021

        People want houses.
        Only forced central planning will push us proles into high rise flats.

        Reply
    4. Gordon Bennett
      June 11, 2021

      Err, no Andy. My servicing costs £60 year and I made my last £1k boiler last 20 years.

      We’re talking the biggest equality divide we’ve ever seen. The Tesla class vs everyone else.

      Hope you’re investing in gates and personal security. May offset your greenism though.

      Reply
    5. NickC
      June 11, 2021

      Andy said: “heat pumps are also significantly cheaper to run“. No, they are really not. You are forgetting that heat pumps require electricity to run at about 6 times the cost of natural gas. With a CoP of 5 (very low lift) the heating bill would still be more. At a CoP of 3 (45degC lift) your heating bill would double.

      Reply
  39. beresford
    June 11, 2021

    You told us only a few days ago that you didn’t believe in policies dictated by global elites, and that matters were decided by national governments who we should concentrate on influencing. Has there been a Damascean conversion in the intervening period?

    Reply
  40. a-tracy
    June 11, 2021

    “When will government and the private sector produce the products and services that they regard as green which fly off the shelves and figure on people’s wish lists?”

    I have people looking at battery vehicles and Kia and Nissan have more affordable options coming into line. Second-hand resale will have to be sorted out by these car companies because the second-hand buyers worry about the battery life of the key component (I’ve been told Kia are looking at 10 year guarantees but perhaps this needs to be a low cost replacement item them more people will risk it). The government is incentivising green cars but for how long, the big bucks buyers are getting a cheaper deal from fuel at the moment but it won’t last as revenues from old fuels drop.

    Does Africa produce a lot of solar tiles and water salination engineering? Roofs should have a solar tile roof by now to generate power for that home but what would be the incentive of the power boards to do that they would lose out. More and more buildings aren’t using bricks and breezeblock some of our colder neighbours adapted to new technologies faster than we did.

    Reply
    1. SM
      June 11, 2021

      a-tracy – I live in S Africa, and the solar panels here are made in China, as is so much else. There is very little in the way of desalination plants, as they are expensive to build and maintain I understand, and also require expertise that is in very scarce supply here, sadly.

      Reply
      1. a-tracy
        June 11, 2021

        SM thank you that is interesting I don’t understand why they aren’t made in South Africa? People in the UK are still given the impression that Africa is all starving people without resources, water. They are rarely shown the thriving parts of Africa that educate their children and the booming Cities, business growth, I read that the fastest-growing cities in Africa are Lagos, Kinshasa, Cairo, Luanda and Nairobi. Much of Africa’s urban growth has taken place quietly over the past few decades, far from global media headlines, why?

        We are fiddling around the edges when this is reported “No part of the planet is urbanizing faster than sub-Saharan Africa. The continent’s population of roughly 1.1 billion is expected to double by 2050. More than 80% of that growth will occur in cities, especially slums.” The weforum write “Africa’s cities are the new frontier: sustained population growth will drive economic development, with Africa supplanting China as the world’s manufacturing powerhouse. “

        Reply
  41. Andy
    June 11, 2021

    Mr Redwood – I have a suggestion.

    When the pandemic eases invite yourself into some sixth forms, schools and colleges in your constituency. And do so with one aim. Not to talk to the students but to listen to them talk about climate change, environmentalism and sustainability.

    These issues are the core of who young people are. They want environmentalism and sustainability to be at the top of the agenda. They do not want to return to the dark ages – but they are interested in solutions to the biggest problem their generation will face.

    You will find that Greta is not an aberration. She is very much a spokesperson for her generation.

    Reply I have done this prior to lockdown. Their views were not as you describe. They asked about personal travel and were mainly pro car.

    Reply
    1. jerry
      June 11, 2021

      @Andy; Of course school children are concerned about the Climate, they have been groomed to be so – as the old saying goes, catch them young…

      If a 5 year child old upon entering school was told by a teacher a with colour vision deficiency that the playing field grass was purple in colour, and that UKIPs colours were green and yellow, if those ‘facts’ were never corrected, would that child not grow into adulthood believing grass was indeed purple in colour?!

      Reply
      1. agricola
        June 11, 2021

        No he would believe that the word to cover anything green was the word purple. Just as a frenchman learns that it is vert.

        Reply
    2. Chris S
      June 11, 2021

      The problem is that youngsters have all been brainwashed by the lefty-liberal education system into thinking there is no alternative to the whole Greencrap agenda, founded as it is on anti-capitalism. Also they are not equipped with the life experiences necessary to make any kind of rational assessment of what is practicable and possible.

      Reply
      1. jerry
        June 11, 2021

        @Chris S; “Also [children] are not equipped with the life experiences necessary to make any kind of rational assessment of what is practicable and possible.”

        Indeed and this has become an increasing, due to schools no longer teaching children HOW to think, political correctness meaning far to many children simply get taught what to think, that being the path of least professional risk for teachers and youth leaders etc. Thus school children & students enter adult life with ridged thought structures rather than being guided by real-world evidence.

        Reply
    3. agricola
      June 11, 2021

      You may not have noticed Andy, but very few would opt for a return to the smog of the 60s. Most want a clean environment and subsequent better health and a reduced load on the NHS of preventable disease. The big discussion is about how we achieve it without destroying all that we hold dear, peronal freedom of movement for instance. By the time pupils reach the sixth form they will be asking the same questions, for sure at my alma mater. They will see beyond the desire, the sit in, the civil disobedience demo and be offering and demanding viable solutions. The podgeny of CND and the government believe niavely that it can be done by passing new law, utter nonesense. The educated turn to science and engineering, just as Covid forced them to, they do not jump on a handcart to hell. It will only work if the electorate accept the solutions. They only buy what is attainable financially and at least equivalent in performance. As yet nothing on the personal transport market achieves this. Nothing on the domestic fuel front does either.

      When we do achieve affordable effective solutions we also create an exportable range of goods and ideas, exactly what Brexit Britain is all about.

      You demeen sixth formers by suggesting that they do not look beyond populist jargon and propaganda.

      Reply
      1. jerry
        June 12, 2021

        @agricola; “You may not have noticed Andy, but very few would opt for a return to the smog of the 60s.”

        Don’t you mean smogs of the 1950s, effectively controlled in the 1960s by the Clear Air Acts and the use of smokeless coals etc.

        “It will only work if the electorate accept the solutions.”

        No, it will work because laws make such polices impossible to avoid, a new car after 2030 might become just a (pipe?!) dream for many, whilst many new-build homes will likely be forced to use electric heating. If you think there is going to be a great shift in political allegiances towards anti-green politics you are sadly mistaken in my opinio0n, those most likely to protest are a dying minority even now.

        I make a prediction, closer to these supposed cut-off dates, such will be the unattained technological leaps necessary, such dates will be pushed back.

        Reply
    4. Andy
      June 11, 2021

      Why would young people be anti-car?

      They don’t want you to stop you driving a car, or to stop you heating your home, or stop you going on holiday. They simply want you to do it in a more sustainable way.

      Their views are mostly as I described.

      Reply
      1. NickC
        June 11, 2021

        It’s unicorn dust, Andy. Supposedly “green” cars and heated homes and foreign holidays are not possible for the prices people can afford. And that was JR’s point.

        Reply
        1. jerry
          June 12, 2021

          @NickC; Not unicorn dust, just a heavy dose of “Stateism”.

          There will be no shortage of affordable heating, cars will be made available to those who truly need them -and are of good merit, all others will have to make use of public transport -that its-self will be subsidised by the state, foreign holidays will likely only be available to approved countries -those closest to the UK via the CTRL.

          If that all reminds (or in the case of the like of Andy, informs) us of the old GDR it was intended too! I find no coincidence in the demise of communism and the simultaneous raise of green politics championed by the mostly European idealistic left-wing, using the undemocratic EP grouping system as their platform.

          Reply
    5. Peter2
      June 11, 2021

      Do they believe Greta’s and ER’s predictions of th end of world in 12 years ?

      Reply
      1. John C.
        June 11, 2021

        Probably. They are very sheep-like.

        Reply
  42. glen cullen
    June 11, 2021

    The answer will come from the G7 – Ban everything that isn’t on their green list

    I don’t want to live in a society were I am force to drive an EV, dress like a communist and eat solent green, that’s not freedom of choice… but it is the direction of travel of this government

    Reply
    1. agricola
      June 11, 2021

      Until the election, should they persist with such idiocy. No doubt sea borne plastic waste will still wash up in Carbis Bay G7 or not.

      Reply
    2. MiC
      June 11, 2021

      You’ve lost, Glen.

      Get over it and less of the silly nonsense.

      How does “a communist” dress, for goodness’ sake?

      Reply
      1. glen cullen
        June 11, 2021

        they are forced to dress ALL the same….no choice

        Reply
        1. MiC
          June 11, 2021

          Ah, school uniform, I see…

          Reply
      2. a-tracy
        June 11, 2021

        Greta has said in her 4 demands that she wants everyone eating vegan, you know it is green policy to drive an EV? Sustainable fashion is a movement.

        At the extreme, you ask “How does a communist dress” – people consider North Korea more socialist than communist but it depends on your definition of communal State control: “How to manage one’s body, what to put on one’s body, and how to present one’s body in public and private lives do not seem to belong to a realm of individual choices in North Korea. Rather, it is a matter of strict state policies and regulations”

        Punishment if you don’t wear what you’re allowed “Not long after she bought them in the market, she was stopped and scolded for wearing them: the first step in a process that usually ends in a series of lectures and, at worst, forced labour.”

        Reply
        1. Mitchel
          June 11, 2021

          North Korea is governed according to “Juche”-socialist self-reliance-a variation on Stalin’s “socialism in one country”which was not communism.

          Reply
      3. Lester
        June 11, 2021

        MiC

        Probably like Chairman Mao?

        Reply
    3. J Bush
      June 11, 2021

      +1
      May I suggest you do a google search of “G7 Finance Minister and Central Bank Governors Communique”. This is real eye opener on the direction this government want to take us.

      Reply
  43. Andy
    June 11, 2021

    Many months ago – before the deals were signed – I raised the issue of what Brexit meant for touring musicians. I got the usual abuse.

    Music is a big industry – not just the bands and orchestras themselves – but entire specialist crews of sound and lighting experts, stage managers, roadies, logistics etc etc. The UK is a world leader in this area in an industry worth £2bn to our economy.

    But an end to free movement decimates this industry. It adds multiple layers of pointless and expensive bureaucracy to the process, having a devastating effect – particularly on those starting their careers. Not only do those involved need work permits, carnets are needed for instruments and lots of other silly new Brexit red tape.

    Yesterday Sir Elton John and a group of others wrote to a committee of MPs explaining the massive negative impact this has had. Sir Simon Rattle has raised similar points. And of course it is not just music. The loss of free movement also affects also the fashion industry, sport, arts, broadcasting, tech, architecture, finance, engineering and many more. In film there are already stories of British actors and crew being told not to apply for positions because they lack free movement unless they are a dual national.

    David Frost – the unelected bureaucrat who negotiated the Brexit mess – was supposed to give evidence to the same committee of MPs as Sir Elton but he pulled out without explanation. Mr Frost appears not to like scrutiny unless it is led by Brexitist sycophants like Bill Cash who give him a free ride.

    Any of you who voted leave – if you have children or grandchildren who work (or want to work) in areas like music, the creative arts, fashion, sport, broadcasting, tech etc …. did you vote to significantly limit their opportunities or has the unaccountable Brexitist David Frost misinterpreted your vote? A sausage for your thoughts.

    Reply
    1. Peter2
      June 11, 2021

      Strangely bands from the USA tour Europe and have done for decades.
      UK bands tour USA and have done for decades.
      And even more strangely UK bands toured Europe for decades before the EU began.

      Reply
    2. Mark
      June 11, 2021

      As it is now possible for Icelandic singer Björk to tour the UK following the trade deal recently negotiated, perhaps you should be directing your whinge at the cause of the problem: the intransigent EU bureaucracy. You should give them nul points.

      Reply
    3. Gordon Bennett
      June 11, 2021

      Well if music is now our best export it shows how much good the EU has done us.

      Reply
      1. Jim Whitehead
        June 12, 2021

        G. B.., Good comments you have offered, thank you.

        Reply
    4. NickC
      June 11, 2021

      Don’t be so precious, Andy. You get nowhere near the abuse you dish out.

      Reply
  44. Ian Wragg
    June 11, 2021

    Untrue. We don’t all subscribe to the notion that CO2 is warming the planet or affecting the climate.
    This is s confected argument promoted by globalists to transfer wealth from the many to the few.
    There will be a massive backlash when people of Britain are cold and hungry whilst the rest of the world soldiers on regardless.
    Wake up John to the massive con.

    Reply
    1. J Bush
      June 11, 2021

      +1

      Reply
    2. Jim Whitehead
      June 11, 2021

      IW, +1,
      Sir John, it’s long past time to echo Dr. Johnson’s, “I refute it thus” as he kicked the chair.

      Reply
    3. Andy
      June 11, 2021

      Not everyone subscribes to the view that the world is round. But they’re wrong too.

      Reply
      1. NickC
        June 11, 2021

        Not everyone subscribes to the view that there are 17.4m angry Tory pensioners either. Or 55,000 extra penpushers. Or to the impossibility of the UK surviving just as well outside the EU as in. And the world isn’t round anyway. It isn’t even spherical; it’s approximately oblate.

        Reply
  45. Lester
    June 11, 2021

    Would it not be a good idea to hold a Referendum to ascertain the views of the population for this disastrous policy?

    I don’t remember it being mentioned once during the campaigning for the 2019 election but Johnson has, with an 80 seat majority has taken it as having been given the Green light (literally” for a policy which will destroy our way of life!

    All based on the views of an autistic school girl and her parents

    Referendum now please

    Reply
    1. Bryan Harris
      June 11, 2021

      Agreed – Government take too many liberties, and are far too often wrong following the latest trend.

      Let sensible people decide.

      Reply
    2. J Bush
      June 11, 2021

      +1
      Given it will be the people, not the globalist leaning politicians, who will be effected by this. The direction they are deviantly and surreptitiously trying to take us, is not in the least way democratic.

      Reply
      1. Bryan Harris
        June 11, 2021

        +1

        Reply
    3. Andy
      June 11, 2021

      We had a general election in 2019 and Boris Johnson won what Brexitists call a ‘stonking majority’ with a manifesto promise we’d be net carbon zero by 2050. If you voted Tory in 2019 you literally voted for this.

      Reply
      1. John C.
        June 11, 2021

        I hope you did. Sounds just your thing. Up the Tories!

        Reply
      2. Peter2
        June 11, 2021

        Happy to vote for it Andy.
        But this post and the general debate is about how are we going to achieve that ambition.

        Reply
      3. Lester
        June 11, 2021

        Andy

        Can you please remind me when any of the current controversial policies were discussed in the 2019 election manifesto?

        The same with the Hartlepool by-election, it’s been taken as approval for all the Green nonsense

        Reply
      4. Gordon Bennett
        June 11, 2021

        Not ICE cars gone in 10 years. No-one saw that coming, least of all you.

        Reply
      5. NickC
        June 11, 2021

        Andy, No one votes for a specific policy unless that policy is put to a referendum. So, no, people “literally” didn’t vote for this.

        Reply
    4. Elizabeth Spooner
      June 11, 2021

      The application of Covid restrictions and the present great reluctance to withdraw them, has encouraged those in power, even the government, to think they an impose these expensive and authoritarian green directions at will. Maybe they want to abolish elections for the green agenda as it stands with its message of -peasants – get back to your cold and dark houses and return to travel by horse and cart – is as attractive a manifesto as Michael Foot’s was.

      Reply
      1. Bryan Harris
        June 11, 2021

        +1

        Reply
        1. Lester
          June 11, 2021

          BH

          + 100

          Reply
  46. G Carty
    June 11, 2021

    “They did not comment on the way large quoted companies, told to get out of coal, simply sell their coal assets onto someone less exposed to criticism.”

    Indeed — “ethical investing” is worthless virtue signalling based on the stock market mythology that businesses are funded by shareholders rather than customers. Fossil fuel companies (for example) are mature firms and thus unlikely to be even issuing new shares in the first place. Selling shares in them just means that someone less environmentally-conscious than you collects the dividends.

    Reply
    1. Mark
      June 11, 2021

      One of my concerns is that the buyers all too often turn out to be Chinese. When they control the resources they will be able to dictate to us on anything they care to. Capitulation by the West in resource development is an act of utter folly.

      Reply
  47. Alan Jutson
    June 11, 2021

    I wonder what the total green footprint is for the G7 meeting ?
    That will tell you all you want to know about the worlds politicians.

    Any battery planes, cars, buses being used to transport politicians and their associates to the venue ?
    All hotels, water/space heating, cooking only completed by electricity ?
    How did 5,000 police get there, by battery car/coaches.?
    How was all the fencing and portacabins transported and erected, by battery powered lorries and cranes?

    Will the G20 meeting be any different.?

    Summed up simply as ,Do as I say not do as I do, as I do not have to pay the bill, you do !

    Reply
    1. J Bush
      June 11, 2021

      Agreed. Why did Johnson travel there by jet? What was wrong with using a train? Or does he think and his pillow talker think that is not good enough for them?

      Reply
      1. lifelogic
        June 11, 2021

        +1

        Reply
    2. rose
      June 11, 2021

      They really don’t need to have a barbecue on the beach either. It is setting an appalling example, even if they use something other than instant throwaway toxic petroleum fuelled bbqs which start fires, foul the air in our parks and on our beaches, and litter the landscape.

      Reply
      1. lifelogic
        June 11, 2021

        +1, all that CO2 released and 99% of the heat wasted with circa 1% used to heat the food. Have the EU not devised energy standards for BBQs yet?

        Reply
        1. MiC
          June 11, 2021

          What has the European Union to do with it?

          Reply
          1. Lester
            June 11, 2021

            MiC

            Do you really need to ask 🙄🙄🙄

          2. Lifelogic
            June 11, 2021

            I merely posed the question, as the EU usually find some excuse to regulate almost everything they can. I did not suggest they were regulating BBQs in Cornwall. Why not read properly and think before replying?

    3. a-tracy
      June 11, 2021

      Did the police get there by train perhaps?

      It takes 6 hours with one change to get from London to St Ives by Train.

      Reply
      1. Alan Jutson
        June 11, 2021

        a-tracy
        I think (but could be wrong) the police have been deployed from all parts of the Country, not just one start point.
        Likewise they actually need to move about when they are required to do so, in addition it perhaps would not be efficient to try to catch any wrong doers by chasing them on foot.
        Unlike the old days when we actually had regular foot patrols and coppers on bicycles in most Towns.

        Reply
        1. graham1946
          June 11, 2021

          Nice to know that these self important people, all with their own security staff can have 5,000 police look after them, whilst we cannot get one out to a burglary.

          Reply
    4. glen cullen
      June 11, 2021

      Is the post of Prime Minister the only position where to can take your fiancé to a high-level meeting ? When did becoming PM made you a social and media celebrate ? Is she the new icon of Green Conservatives

      reply She is his wife and partners were invited. Mrs Biden is present so Mrs Johnson is hosting partners.

      Reply
      1. John C.
        June 11, 2021

        Why were partners invited?

        Reply
        1. J Bush
          June 11, 2021

          Because they are not paying for it…those who do have to pay for it, are not asked.

          Reply
        2. Lester
          June 11, 2021

          John C

          Good question, surely theirs presence in unnecessary?

          Reply
        3. glen cullen
          June 11, 2021

          Exactly

          Reply
        4. graham1946
          June 11, 2021

          Well it’s a nice jolly – the whole reason for this thing in the first place, to show how important they all are. Not the same thing at all by Zoom.

          Reply
      2. glen cullen
        June 11, 2021

        I stand corrected SirJ – but its still a jolly

        Reply
  48. glen cullen
    June 11, 2021

    ”How will governments gain popular buy in for their green revolution?”

    By leaving it to market forces and consumer freedom of choice

    Reply
    1. Everhopeful
      June 11, 2021

      Lol!
      The green stuff is such cr*p they will have to make it obligatory.
      The Enforced Purchase Act.
      Kind of what they do with taxation really!
      Oh, except that we don’t even get eco junk in return for that theft!

      Reply
      1. Lifelogic
        June 11, 2021

        +1

        Reply
      2. glen cullen
        June 11, 2021

        If this government and tories didn’t enact any new laws and generally left things alone, the country and the people would probably prosper at a faster rate and they’d remain in power by actually doing nothing…..as everything they touch is a disaster

        Reply
  49. Bryan Harris
    June 11, 2021

    The question begs for criticism:

    How will governments gain popular buy in for their green revolution?

    As does this:

    Today practically all of us accept carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which will heat the planet if more is produced…

    which is pure politics with about .002% science.
    As we’ve seen with the sun going into a quiet phase, Co2 is but a small factor in our weather and climate – and no we are not running out of polar bears – and no the oceans are not rising – and no the ice at both poles is not melting, it’s as substantial as its ever been…!

    One way the government could get us to believe their MMCC fantasy would be to just pile on the TV adverts on the subject – It certainly worked with covid. It seems the government has stopped listening to reality or even true science, so what is the agenda?.

    Sensible people and companies will be against the the whole sordid net-zero notion simply because of the logic, but more will resent and fight back against the components of this fetid policy which will see us impoverished and forced to use energy sources that are too expensive in every sense.
    Why hasn’t the government invested in natural energy production, (No not solar nor wind), that can be substituted for Gas and coal – That’s what they would be doing if they truly believed their own doctrine. “Only 10 years to save the planet” – Gets repeated ever 8 years or so.

    Others will be alarmed at the vast expense of a mechanism designed to steal our ability to live our lives in worthwhile ways without excessive bureaucracy and unnatural inhibitions.

    (I’ll be surprised if this is not deleted, but I hope at least that it will be read by our host)

    Reply
    1. Lester
      June 11, 2021

      BH

      Agreed !

      Reply
  50. John Miller
    June 11, 2021

    Nobody has ever explained to me the mechanics of global warming.
    If we could magically stop the production of carbon dioxide, all life on earth would die.
    All of nature depends on virtuous cycles. Animals produce carbon dioxide, plants use that to create energy using photosynthesis.
    The unearthing of the East Anglia University emails convinced me the whole concept of “global warming” was a carefully concocted fiction.
    The only way to combat “climate change” (note the rebranding exercise) is further education. But the education system has bowed before this religion. Christopher Booker in the DT used to be good at exposing the ploys of the “warming brigade”. Since his passing I read “Watts Up With That” to cheer myself up, as a relief from the tedious scam.
    It will be left to the grown ups to complete the children’s education.

    Reply
    1. MiC
      June 11, 2021

      Why would anyone waste their time?

      Reply
  51. ukretired123
    June 11, 2021

    Sadly Edward de Bono famous for promoting lateral thinking passed away this week. He was the antithesis of group think and many benefited from his brainstorming ideas so essential in today’s challenging world as Sir John’s daily topics reflect.
    On the Great Green Revolution it often lacks the crucial Pilot test well known to the self-employed when starting out:-
    The principle of “Only throw a pebble into the pond, before jumping in yourself and wishing you hadn’t” .
    Unfortunately governments burn other people’s money and go along with snake-oil salesman big time…..

    Reply
  52. ChrisS
    June 11, 2021

    The average voter has far more common sense than the left-wing anti-capitalist Green lobby credits them with. This hasn’t even dawned on our politicians yet.

    Any voter who has looked at the frightening cost to them of going along with the entire Greencrap agenda can see that it’s utterly pointless unless the big polluters like China and India all follow suit. They understand that these large economies aren’t and won’t comply. China is still churning out new coal fired power stations every year which completely cancel out everything we might do at huge competitive cost to us !

    Do the Green lobby really think that Africans are going to swap their 1970s and 1980s highly polluting diesel and petrol Mercedes cars for brand new electric ones they can’t remotely afford when so many parts of the Continent don’t even have enough electricity to light their homes ?

    It might or might not be necessary but one thing is certain. Countries like the UK cannot afford to go down this route. Voters will not support it because of the personal cost to them and governments won’t be able to implement it without dramatically increasing taxation on their voters to pay for it.

    The only solutions that will solve the problem, if indeed it is as bad as we are told, will be new technological ones. Rolls Royce is working on lower-cost mini-nuclear electricity generating plants and there are many other research projects that will eventually bear fruit.

    Reply
  53. Kenneth
    June 11, 2021

    It’s simple: “green” ideas will only ever work if they are good for our pockets. So, the answer is CONSERVATION.

    That is:
    re-suable packaging
    heating people not buildings
    removing the need to travel (job swaps; work from home; stop most immigration).

    The problem is that the civil service, media, charities, education etc (the unelected) are obsessed with what is fashionable.

    It used to be “recycling” and now most people realise that was a big mistake. Nowadays its “nudging” and “shaming” and “banning” i.e. coercion and propaganda. Obviously this will also prove to be a mistake.

    The problem is that undemocratic forces are getting in the way. They always do!

    The market is far moire democratic and a government that listens to popular opinion – and not “elites” – will be too

    Reply
  54. William Long
    June 11, 2021

    We have a bit of a problem here, because the leaderships of all the political parties, and not just the mainstream ones, are made up of members of the ‘Elite’ and all seem to hold the same green views, so who do we vote for if we want something different? Was Mr Trump the only hope?

    Reply
    1. Lester
      June 11, 2021

      William Long

      It would appear that Donald Trump was the last hope but he’ll be back with any luck!

      Reply
      1. Jim Whitehead
        June 12, 2021

        Lester, +1

        Reply
    2. glen cullen
      June 11, 2021

      I fear your analysis is correct….and if the labour party ever shifted its position to fully support brexit and abandon its climate change policies they’d win the next general election !

      Reply
  55. Pat
    June 11, 2021

    The fact that people say they want to reduce CO2 but don’t actually do anything about it reveals that they don’t in fact want that, they just think it’s the fashionable thing to say.
    And mostly that includes politicians.
    We have green proposals that can only be met by dismantling civilisation and politicians trying to fiddle a way round that.
    Eventually either we confront the greens and abandon the idea that mankind can control the climate, or we return to the stone age.

    Reply
    1. Mark
      June 11, 2021

      A recent poll found over half (56%) of Americans were only prepared to spend less that $20 a month on green costs. Just an elite 1% were prepared to spend over $1,000, which is probably where we are headed with a net zero policy.

      Reply
    2. glen cullen
      June 11, 2021

      +1

      Reply
  56. Edwardm
    June 11, 2021

    First big mistake is to accept that CO2 is a prime driver of temperature increase. CO2 effects are based on nothing more than “predictions” from incomplete climate models – that make assumptions on sensitivity to CO2. On the same basis H2O is a greenhouse gas, but is ignored, why? The amount of cloud cover has a big effect on world temperatures, but CO2 does not form clouds. The natural rate of cooling in the evening is greater than anything CO2 contributes, so it acts as a reset, modified by cloud cover and there is natural blackbody radiation from the earths core. Reportedly volcanos around the world emit many times the CO2 that is man made. Higher levels of CO2 mean slightly faster plant growth.
    Historically the temperature of the world has varied, probably owing to solar effects, and CO2 rise has historically lagged temperature rise (owing to slow de-gassing from the oceans with increased temperature), yet this is not being considered as a cause.
    First of all you need an independent commission into all the climate evidence – and do not accept the ignorant BBC/left wing “science is settled” nonsense.
    As you correctly say, in practical terms it will be difficult to get most people to buy in to the consequences of net-zero. Even more so given China is not going to follow our sacrificial example and will use cheap fossil energy to out compete us. There will be electoral consequences in years to come.

    Reply
  57. Mark Thomas
    June 11, 2021

    Sir John,
    Old Joe has flown in to tell the US military that the greatest threat they face is global warming, and islands sinking.
    Meanwhile in Cornwall I hope the Prime Minister remembers the President’s favourite flavour ice cream.

    Reply
  58. Dave Ward
    June 11, 2021

    “Today practically all of us accept carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which will heat the planet if more is produced and nothing else changes”

    But the amount of warming CO2 is responsible for is miniscule. Water vapour is a far more potent greenhouse gas, but I don’t see Boris demanding that “We” destroy the country to try and reduce it…

    Reply
    1. agricola
      June 11, 2021

      CO2=0.04% of the Earths atmosphere. I rest my case.

      Reply
      1. MiC
        June 11, 2021

        There is an far tinier amount of ozone, hundreds of times less, but my goodness do we need it.

        Your post is utterly fatuous.

        But if you’re so confident, then why not drink a glass of water containing 0.04% potassium cyanide?

        Reply
        1. Peter2
          June 11, 2021

          And that is an utterly fatuous response MiC
          CO2 isnt a poison.
          Certainly not at 0.04%

          Reply
      2. MiC
        June 12, 2021

        If that CO2 were in a layer then today it would be about 15 metres thick, as compared with about 10 metres thick in mediaeval times.

        For comparison the ozone layer, if pure, would be about 3mm thick.

        There has been a huge increase, and with inevitable physical effects.

        Reply
      3. hefner
        June 12, 2021

        At the time of the Montreal Protocol, the concentrations of CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CCl4, and SF6 (the chlorofluorocarbons that were ‘impacting’ the ozone over both polar regions) were respectively 230 ppt, 430 ppt, 50 ppt, 100 ppt and 1.6 ppt (parts per trillion). And despite their concentrations at least 100,000 smaller than that of CO2 they had an impact on ozone, the amount of UV reaching the surface, and are thought to be linked to a (small) increase in skin cancer in areas bordering the polar regions.

        Agricola, E2P2, should I rest my case?
        As long as you guys don’t make the efforts to learn how to go from concentrations to actual radiative effects I am afraid you are just making yourselves useless witnesses of the scientific conversation. At least try NickC’s way, he seems to have gone by leaps and bounds towards the understanding of these things.

        Reply
    2. Lester
      June 11, 2021

      Dave Ward

      Co2 is an essential nutrient gas responsible to greening the planet and with the ever-expanding population it will be needed more to ever, commercial growers pump it into their greenhouses to speed crop growth

      Reply
  59. George Brooks.
    June 11, 2021

    ”You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.” You are absolutely right Sir John and that is as far as the Green Revolution has got

    Time limits have been set but there has been no practical thought as to what will replace our present method of heating and transport. The internal combustion engine took over thirty years of development before it became a popular mode of transport and it was only about 40 years ago that North sea oil and gas answered our heating problems.

    In the intervening years we have quite rightly shut down our coal powered generating stations, shunned nuclear power, made little progress in replacing them except by littering the country side and our coastal waters with windmills that only work in a moderate breeze.

    The older generation have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to change their cars or boilers and we are possibly over 20 years away from having any worth while infrastructure to be able to rely on electricity.

    The government needs to get a grip, extend the deadline by 20 years and incentivise industry to solve the problem. Anything less and this country will end up a complete mess

    Reply
  60. rose
    June 11, 2021

    But do we all subscribe to the CO2 cult? I have yet to find a scientist who can explain to me why it was warmer in the middle ages than it is now. Surely the sun is the strongest influence on our climate? Of course mankind can make a small difference at the margins but how will he stop the next ice age when it is due? By frantically burning fossil fuels?

    Perhaps one of Sir John’s readers can enlighten me.

    Reply
  61. glen cullen
    June 11, 2021

    Tin-pot dictator in Africa

    Shall I buy the new Lear Jet or spend £20 million on covid vaccine for my people

    The Lear Jet of course, the stupid western countries will supply the vaccine for free if we wait out long enough and get a few charities to take a few videos

    Half of Africa produce oil the other half want that oil and neither see green issues

    Reply
    1. Alan Jutson
      June 11, 2021

      Glen

      Ref Your scenario.

      Unfortunately my fear is that much of the “free vaccine” will end up on the so called black/alternative market to be sold for profit to those who can afford it, unless it is all properly supervised.

      We are already hearing alleged accounts of vaccines now going out of date (through lack of planning) or even being destroyed in some countries.

      Reply
      1. Lester
        June 11, 2021

        Alan Jutson

        They’re very welcome to my jabs!

        Reply
        1. glen cullen
          June 11, 2021

          no they’re not ….I’ve paid for that

          Reply
  62. Everhopeful
    June 11, 2021

    Mind you, Johnson does seem to have a problem with time/dates/truth.
    Maybe Agenda 2030 will become like June 21st?
    Morph into 3030 or something?
    This week, next week, some week….never!
    We can only hope that this barmy project and its proponents will disappear in a puff of diesel smoke or get unfortunately entangled in a windmill.

    Reply
  63. a-tracy
    June 11, 2021

    Andy, You say “You will find that Greta is not an aberration. She is very much a spokesperson for her generation.”

    So what does Greta preach that the students agree to go along with?

    Her four key points from ctvnews.ca:
    1. Fly less or not at all.
    2. Cut down on meat consumption or go vegan.
    3. Join an activist movement e.g. Thunberg inspired the “Fridays for Future” movement which encourages students to strike and miss school in order to demand that their concerns be heard.
    4. Vote – pick a candidate that is going to put climate change front and centre to press those in power to adapt their policies and adopt new legislature to save the planet.

    A Reuters article 16 July 2020 –
    Greta says – The world needed an economic overhaul to have a chance of beating climate change and rip up old deals and contracts to meet green targets. The 17-year-old said “people in power had practically “given up” on searching for a real solution…. only fundamental change to the existing system would bring climate change under control…planned investments to boost fossil fuel production are likely to push temperature goals enshrined in the 2015 Paris Agreement out of reach…tear up and abandon valid contracts and deals.”

    So the demand is:
    1. An Immediate halt to all investment in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, a rapid ending of fossil fuel subsidies.
    2.A binding annual ‘carbon budget’ to limit how much greenhouse gas countries can emit.
    3. Prosecute people in the Hague for a new crime of ‘ecocide’ for large scale destruction of the natural world. (Could we have an example of who in particular she would prosecute this year?).
    4. Climate policies designed to protect workers and the most vulnerable and reduce economic, racial and gender inequalities as well as moves to safeguard and protect democracy.

    Now ask the teens and young adults you know:
    a) Do you intend not to fly anymore, to eat vegan, do you intend to become an activist to get your own way, or vote only for green candidates?
    b) How can you protect people’s jobs in fossil fuel extraction, exploration and related industries etc.? If you ban them how many people would this affect in the UK? What will you replace fossil fuel with? Do you intend to wait to buy a car until you can afford a battery car? Where will you recharge it? Do you intend to use only public transport?
    c) What fossil fuel subsidies are given to people in the UK? Who are these companies, how many jobs would it affect? What would we use instead?

    Reply
    1. Lester
      June 11, 2021

      A-Tracy

      Greta’s scripts are written by her parents
      Without her teleprompter she isn’t capable of individual thoughts

      Reply
      1. glen cullen
        June 11, 2021

        Agree…..why isn’t she going to university to study real science

        Reply
        1. rose
          June 12, 2021

          Her father is an actor manager, as is her grandfather, and her mother is an opera singer. Greta has a beautiful voice and manner and a beautiful delivery; her is a delightfully old-fashioned acting style, a real throwback to the theatre of our youth.

          Reply
  64. Brian Tomkinson
    June 11, 2021

    We no longer live in a democratically governed country but in an elective dictatorship thanks to the acquiescence or complicity of 650 MPs.

    Reply
  65. X-Tory
    June 11, 2021

    The climate has changed throughout history – even before man existed. So while the climate may well be changing now I have seen NO proof that this is caused by man. And even if it were, the UK’s contribution is so minor as to be irrelevant. If CO2 emissions really are a problem then we should all impose trade sanctions on China right now. Until the British government does this I will not accept that their actios are reasonable. They are destroying the UK’s economy and making all Britons suffer for no good reason. Obvuously I wil not vte for a party that does that.

    None of that is to say that new, less polluting products are not welcome. Electric cars are less noisy and result in cleaner air for us all to breathe. They also have superb acceleration (the latest Tesla does 0-60 in 2 secs!). So I will buy an electric car once they have solved the battery technology and the price comes down. And that’s the answer to your question: scientists coming up with better, cheaper products. So the government must invest heavily in R&D, to help develop the technology that leads to the products that the public will want to buy. Unless they intend to act like fascists, imposing expensive and unpopular solutions, that is the only way.

    Reply
    1. John C.
      June 11, 2021

      0 to 60 in 2 seconds in a virtually silent car sounds like a recipe for death, especially for pedestrians and cyclists. But let’s not bother about that.

      Reply
  66. Barbara
    June 11, 2021

    “Today practically all of us accept carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which will heat the planet if more is produced and nothing else changes. “

    Not sure who you mean by “us”. I don’t think most people do accept that, actually, especially those who have had a proper scientific education.

    Politicians and activists, maybe.

    Reply
    1. Jim Whitehead
      June 12, 2021

      Barbara, +1, ‘us’ must be someone else, not anybody I know.

      Reply
  67. forthurst
    June 11, 2021

    Do we have a Tory government or a UN government? There are two major policies promoted by the UN which the Tory party have avidly signed up to, their haloes aglow, which will have the greatest negative impact on our lives: minimum Carbon and maximum third worlders. The fact that the second is bound to make the first far more onerous has obviously escaped both the UN and the Tory Party both of whom seem to be run by scientifically illiterate propagandists whose interpretation of the general good is to fly around the globe in private jets telling the rest of us how we must live.

    Only a national movement of patriotic English people can stop the destruction of our once great country by the political parties which for far too long have dominated the political discourse here while better educated and cleverer people have been deliberately excluded.

    Reply
    1. Iain Moore
      June 11, 2021

      Well not Tory if reports of Johnson saying at the G7 that we have to build back in a more gender neutral way

      Reply
      1. steve
        June 12, 2021

        Iain Moore

        Ok then Johnson can lead by example……..now where’s them shears.

        Reply
      2. Jim Whitehead
        June 12, 2021

        LOL, . . . .Laugh Out Loud, . . . . Or Leap Off Ledge ?

        Reply
  68. Ed M
    June 11, 2021

    Hopes for the British Family is now looking good or better with Boris now married in The Catholic Church which has the strictest laws regarding marriage. Good news.

    Reply
    1. Ed M
      June 11, 2021

      (God sure does work in mysterious ways – never so this one coming – but Boris’ marriage is valid so best wishes to him and his lovely wife, Carrie)

      Reply
      1. MiC
        June 11, 2021

        My goodness me – you really are a Believer, aren’t you?

        Of, well, almost anything, it appears.

        Reply
        1. Ed M
          June 11, 2021

          @Mic,
          It’s easy to be cynical!
          Rather, look at what Traditional Christianity has given this great country: (Medieval) Parliament, Monarchy, Judiciary, Oxford, Cambridge, Medieval Catholic Guilds, Chivalry, Grammar Schools, Eton, Winchester, Salisbury Cathedral, Handel, Jane Austen, Faraday, Sir Isaac Newton, Shakespeare, Samuel Johnson – all strong believers, and further afield, Bach, Mozart, Salzburg, Florence, Rome, Venice. How Traditional Christianity gives us the beautiful and romantic and erotic Song of Songs, the vision of a strong family and country, a strong economy (look at the Quakers in Business), sense of Patriotism (St Joan of Arc – Churchill said she was greatest human being in last 1000 yrs), art (Raphael, Fra Angelico, Leonardo etc), literature (Dante, Dostoeskvy, Tolstoy etc), and so on. And that’s just the effect of belief on culture – then on people’s personal lives. Best.

          Reply
          1. MiC
            June 12, 2021

            It’s easier still to be gullible, I think.

        2. Ed M
          June 12, 2021

          @Mic,

          To dismiss all these great achievement with a one-line answer and the word ‘gullible’ does you a dis-service NOT my claim. Yes, I may be completely wrong. But I may also be right too. How can you be so confident you’re right? (Were famous, strong Christians also ‘gullible’, Christian men and women such as: Sir Isaac Newton, Bach, Jane Austen, Mozart, Tolstoy, Dostoevksy, the Quakers who created all those great companies in the UK, Wilberforce, Cyrus the Great (although he was a Zorastrian, he was proclaimed ‘annointed’ in the Bible and so a holy man), Leonardo, Fra Angelico, Raphael, Shakespeare, Faraday, Plank (main founder of quantum physics), and so on.

          Reply
          1. Ed M
            June 12, 2021

            Planck (not ‘Plank’)

    2. hefner
      June 12, 2021

      Wasn’t it funny how quickly the great catholic and apostolic church accepted to marry a twice ‘Anglican’ divorcee just in time for him and his wife to be able to welcome the Catholic PotUS? Or is it better not to ask?

      Reply
  69. Pauline Baxter
    June 11, 2021

    The only way in which CO2 is a GREENHOUSE GAS is that Carbon Dioxide is essential for plants to grow.
    In other words, it is a beneficial gas.
    As someone else has already commented, if most people believe that man made CO2 is harming planet earth it is purely because that LIE has been repeated over and over.

    Reply
  70. formula57
    June 11, 2021

    Today E. Musk at Tesla’s new S Plaid model launch said “…..there is something that is quite important to the future of sustainable energy, which is that we have got to show that than an electric car is the best car – hands down. …. It has got to be clear, ….. sustainable energy cars can be the fastest cars, can be the safest cars, can be the most kick ass cars in every way.”

    So if Tesla can get the price points right for mass adoption of its products, it may well succeed in inducing buy-in. (The new S Plaid has a 400 mile total range and will give 187 miles of range after a 15 minute super charge, per Mr. Musk.)

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      June 11, 2021

      I am happy for people that wish to buy either a Tesla car or a petrol car – its called freedom of choice

      Reply
    2. hefner
      June 12, 2021

      At what appears to be a £74k retail price the Tesla model S is somewhat out of … my range.

      Reply
  71. Barbara
    June 11, 2021

    Letter sent by 500 eco experts to the UN before Covid struck:

    “1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
    2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
    3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
    4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
    5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
    6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
    7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.”

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      June 11, 2021

      +1

      Reply
    2. Mark
      June 11, 2021

      A very accurate summary of the situation.

      Reply
    3. agricola
      June 12, 2021

      +++ well said.

      Reply
    4. hefner
      June 12, 2021

      That’s old stuff, from September 2019. Since then the so-called experts’s credentials have been checked and found somewhat wanting. But it was a good try, certainly.
      As it was of Barbara at recycling old ‘information’.

      Reply
  72. Garret
    June 11, 2021

    Just listening to Boris mumbling on about not much at the G7 and from the body language of the other dignatries sitting around the table can see that you guys are bunched – your goose is well and truly cooked

    Reply
  73. dazed never confused
    June 11, 2021

    Music night on GP. If they play LZ I may start reading them again.

    Reply
  74. Gordon Bennett
    June 11, 2021

    Geez. When did we vote a cultural Marxist into office ? (The PM at the G7)

    Reply
  75. steve
    June 11, 2021

    JR
    “How will governments gain popular buy in for their green revolution?”

    HA HA….laughing so much it hurts, really !

    Never let it be said our host does not have a sense of humour. You’ve come out with a real cracker there, Mr Redwood.

    Seriously though, this revolution – we call it grand scam, is not and never will be popular and therefore is being ‘forced’ as we are now finding out from the gutless goon your party chose to lead the nation into ruin.

    The reason why no governments including Johnson’s have not provided an acceptable alternative technology is simply because it does not exist. In the case of motive power who really wants to pay £40k+ for a soul-less lump of crap that will be worth zilch before the purchase debt is paid off ? Johnson foolishly assumes there is enough virtue signalling twits like him out there who don’t know one end of a spanner from the other.

    And then there’s keeping the house warm – another £40K debt for the masses.

    You are talking about a govertnment and party which has already crossed the line Mr Redwood. It doesn’t matter what they say or how you question them….they’re held in total contempt for many reasons ranging from immigration lies to selling out NI. Take your pick Sir, there is something for everyone to loath about this bunch of criminals calling themselves a government.

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      June 11, 2021

      +1

      Reply
  76. DOM
    June 11, 2021

    The PM “urges the world to be more gender neutral, feminine and green”. Anti-male. Anti-masculine. Anti-capitalist. Anti-freedom.

    I despair. Yet more progressive shit from this charlatan of all charlatans parroting nonsense he doesn’t believe in

    I despise Labour and what they have become from what they once were but the Tories are a special kind of destructive force in that the voter still hasn’t woken up to the what they have morphed into

    Reply
    1. Mark
      June 11, 2021

      The PM opening remarks at G7 were truly pathetic – awful and cringeworthy…..
      I can guess all the other leaders were nodding and smiling as he repeated the woke platitudes

      Truly pathetic and so disappointing

      Reply
    2. Gordon Bennett
      June 11, 2021

      And ANYONE who is still a member of the party.

      Reply
    3. Jim Whitehead
      June 12, 2021

      Steve, +1, with visceral loathing of this pathetic government.

      Reply
  77. agricola
    June 11, 2021

    Government in action, join the last two words at your discretion.
    New Covid Variant called the Indian Variant. Why, it comes from India.
    Lets call it the Delta Variant, reason, its more PC.
    How does it get to the UK. Answer carried by Indians travelling from India. Government action, none until the horse has left the stable.
    Why does it take root in the UK. Because vaccine takeup in our indian communities is very patchy. Additionally many in the indian community live in multi generational accommodation. Good in some respects, but providing a good breeding ground for covid.
    Situation today, covid spreading beyond the indian community. R rate way above 1.0. Prediction, lower death rate due to the vaccination programme, but ultimate freedom for the majority of the population in grave doubt.
    Conclusion government too far under the influence of PC, consequently slow and indecisive, everyone suffers. What is the conservative version.

    Reply
  78. steve
    June 11, 2021

    Once again, not allowed to tell it like it is. No wonder people hold all conservative politicians in contempt. Yep, can’t wait for that ballot box.

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      June 11, 2021

      and this government has just given Raheem Sterling an MBE in the Queens Birthday honours list….doesn’t that just say it all

      Reply
  79. Mark
    June 11, 2021

    “practically all of us accept carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which will heat the planet if more is produced and nothing else changes”

    Erm ….

    Just – no…..

    Reply
  80. Gordon Bennett
    June 11, 2021

    Perhaps BJ could take the knee with Marcus Rashford ? In a mask. A Communist fetishist’s dream. What kind of party do you belong to ???

    He’s more Andy’s PM than mine by a long shot.

    Reply
  81. Mark
    June 11, 2021

    How will governments gain popular buy in for their green revolution?4

    They won’t, even despite the best propaganda efforts from some elements of the media. That is why they are already looking at highly coercive measures such as turfing people out of homes if they don’t meet an arbitrary EPC C standard. I am sure that the resulting mass homelessness will sink their electoral prospects for two generations, if they survive as a party at all. We have replaced the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable by the implausible in pursuit of the impossible.

    Fortunately, we have some elements of the media that are likely to apply the kind of critical examination of green policy so lacking in the propaganda media and in Parliament. I expect that will help to change the debate. GB News is good news.

    Reply
  82. No Longer Anonymous
    June 11, 2021

    We’ve done our bit, Sir John. Taken a jab we didn’t want and suffered lockdown and lack of freedom for fifteen months. Deaths and hospitalisation rates are right down. And we have a PM spouting all manner of woke crap.

    I’m openly refusing to wear your muzzle now. They are now political.

    MiC can wear an N95 and hide away and let the rest of us go free.

    I’m prepared to go to prison before I’m muzzled again.

    Going by the figures (low deaths) we’ve done our bit and muzzling is now political. It’s about saving Boris and saving the Tory party.

    Freedom Day is so fixed in our minds that Boris needs to do a public broadcast with FULL data to avoid mass public disorder.

    Reply
  83. a pleb
    June 11, 2021

    I don’t think “The Agenda”can be changed unfortunately.
    It will be a gradual realisation for the majority ( including MPs)
    Theresa May actually sounded as if she is beginning to get it when she made a speech about travel restrictions.
    The only thing to do is raise one’s own awareness and live in love and truth.

    Reply
  84. agricola
    June 12, 2021

    Reading all the contributions a day later I conclude you have a very real problem in party and government Sir John.

    Reply
    1. Jim Whitehead
      June 12, 2021

      Agricola, +1, there is so much now that makes no sense at all except to the fanatically partisan devotee, and that’s not me.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *