The UK once vowed to be a global climate leader. Now Rishi Sunak is stoking a culture war on green policies - "“What the government seems to be doing is using the climate to divide the public,” Luke Murphy, the associate director for energy, climate, housing and infrastructure at the progressive IPPR think tank, told CNN. “There does seem to be a degree of political opportunism around what they’ve been doing.”... Since coming into power, Sunak has been scrambling for wedge issues that could resonate with Britons and turn around his party’s woeful standing with the public. Small boat crossings of asylum-seekers, transgender protections and other so-called “culture war” battles have all been eagerly waged by a prime minister who vowed during his first leadership campaign last year to stop “woke nonsense.”... “What you are seeing is a much more populist way of handling (the climate),” Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University in London and the author of books on the Conservatives... “That is a typically populist attack line – making a distinction between people on the one hand, and elites on the other.”"
Clearly the climate change agenda is not divisive and there's no political opportunism there. It's only a wedge issue if you disagree with the liberal agenda
If you do something the electorate likes but which elites disapprove of, it's "populism". Evidently democracy is too dangerous to be allowed to exist
The Labour party manifesto of "for the many, not the few" is literally anti-elite. Unless that claim is that the hoi polloi are too stupid to know what is good for them, so they need to have policies they disagree with foisted on them for their own good
Danielle Smith on X - "Ask yourself 👇❓ Why is Canada not using every tool in the toolbox to reduce emissions and pollution worldwide? I would encourage every Canadian to reach out to Minister Steven Guilbeault @s_guilbeault before his trip to China and remind him he has an incredible opportunity to reduce global emissions by exporting cleaner Canadian LNG to countries that rely heavily on coal. As a bonus, this will also expand Canada’s economy and provide more opportunities to grow our middle class. #abpoli #cdnpoli"
Liberal logic: out of sight, out of mind. Emissions generated by non-Western countries don't count
EDITORIAL: Opposing the Liberals isn't climate denial | Toronto Sun - "As Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux has noted, we could reduce our industrial greenhouse gas emissions to zero tomorrow and it would have no impact on human-induced climate change, because our contribution to global emissions is too small. Meanwhile, the Trudeau government has praised China for years on climate change. China is the world’s largest emitter. It burns more coal than the rest of the world combined. Using coal to produce electricity is the single largest source of global emissions. The Liberals’ approach to addressing climate change also contradicts the views of most Canadians, according to a recent Nanos/CTV poll. It showed that while they’re concerned about climate change, they’re skeptical about the way the Trudeau government has addressed it and worried about the costs. The poll found 64% of Canadians surveyed believe extreme weather events are the result of climate change (meaning human-induced climate change), while 28% believe it’s the result of natural variations in weather with 8% unsure. But 65% also said a carbon tax is an ineffective way to encourage people to use less fossil fuels, 53%, said a carbon tax is ineffective in combatting climate change and 67% said this is a bad time to increase carbon taxes... What isn’t true is the Trudeau government’s continuing claim its carbon tax/carbon pricing regime leaves most Canadians better off financially in those provinces paying it, because of rebates. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer has reported, when the negative impact of the carbon tax on the economy is factored in, most Canadians paying the federal carbon tax end up worse off financially."
FIRST READING: Public Health Agency of Canada report calls for toppling of 'capitalism and liberty' - "A new Health Canada report suggests public health officials should be openly advocating for the toppling of capitalism, Western society and even the very concept of “liberty and individualism” “Fundamental changes in our socioeconomic structures are needed to rebuild our relationships with each other and with our planet,” reads the conclusion of the April 17 report prepared for chief public health officer Dr. Theresa Tam. The paper — written by three authors who “identify as white settlers” — also recommended that Canadian public health actions should focus on “decolonization, justice and equity” above all. The 72-page report, What We Heard: Perspectives on Climate Change and Public Health in Canada, was commissioned to detail the “impacts of climate change on the health and well-being of people living in Canada.” The authors surveyed 30 academics and public health experts for their input... the Health Canada report is very careful not to get into specifics: There is no explicit mention of a condition or infectious illness that is expected to become worse in Canada as a result of climate change. Rather, the report features Canadian public health professionals explaining how they should focus on “less tangible determinants,” such as “legal, colonial, and racist factors.”... Recent polls show that Canadians’ trust in public health agencies remains high in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, even as public trust in politicians has fallen. Polls have also shown that up to 90 per cent of Canadians agree that climate change is occurring, with as much as 70 per cent supporting a move to lower carbon usage. Nevertheless, one respondent to the report said they believed the exact opposite was occurring on both points. “Public health is under attack in some provinces … and there’s this climate change denial that we all know is being fuelled by the fossil fuel sector. So, my worry is that with public health that we won’t actually be able to get out there and do what we need to do,” they said. The report also contained the near-unanimous pronouncement that public health agencies should receive more funding, even at the expense of the primary health care system. The reasoning behind that is if public heath has more money to improve society and fight climate change, fewer people will be going to the hospital. "
Civil service bias is a paranoid right wing conspiracy theory. Since we know the civil service is unbiased, this must mean capitalism must be toppled and replaced with socialism because of climate change
Environmental knowledge is inversely associated with climate change anxiety - "This study tests the hypotheses that overall environmental knowledge and climate-specific knowledge are inversely related to climate change anxiety, such that people who know more (less) about the environment in general, and about climate in particular, are less (more) anxious about climate change. Time lagged data were collected from N = 2,066 individuals in Germany. Results showed that, even after controlling for demographic characteristics, personality characteristics, and environmental attitudes, overall environmental knowledge and climate-specific knowledge were negatively related to climate change anxiety (both B = -.09, p < .001)."
How dare they not Trust the Science?! Don't they know that the world is ending and Earth will soon be uninhabitable?
Climate change hystericists are just ignorant
No evidence to support wild claims of ‘global boiling’ - "First, let’s deal with this “hottest month in 120,000 years” claim. Does anyone know what the climate was like, in any detailed way, over the last 120,000 years? In short, no. Mercury thermometres were only invented around 1720. NASA’s surface temperature record (arguably one of the world’s best) only dates back to 1880. Satellites started recording temperatures in 1979, giving us a better idea about the Earth’s average temperatures (at least the temperature at certain heights in the atmosphere). That’s about all we have by way of decent-quality measurements of the Earth’s average surface temperature. Any estimate of conditions previous to these dates is based on indirect measures of temperature (like fossil tree ring patterns or latent heat measured in arctic boreholes). But as a landmark report from the U.S. National Academies of Science documented back in 2006 (when claims of historic abnormality of climate first went mainstream), these “proxy” measures are of low resolution—in other words, vague indicators of temperature over centuries and millennia, not decades or years. So any claim that we’re experiencing the “hottest month in 120,000 years” is simply propaganda, not a statement of reality backed by hard evidence. Now, about those fires. Yes, we’re having a lot of them this year. Yes, that’s playing havoc with air quality across much of North America and bringing misery in its wake. But once again, real measured data are a stubborn thing. And the data suggest that recent trends in fire patterns around the world are not clearly related to recent climate change. In fact, the trend in number of wildfires (and area burned) in Canada has been declining over the past three decades as the climate has warmed. Globally, in its latest climate report, the UN’s vaunted IPCC assigns only “medium confidence” to the idea that climate change has actually caused increased “fire weather” in some regions on Earth. In addition, reports by the Royal Society (another fairly authoritative scientific body) have shown that while fire activity is on the rise in some regions, there’s not a clear overall increase when considering total areas burned worldwide. Any sober analysis of the available evidence will deflate all the hot air from the media’s climate hysteria"
Net zero evangelists need a reality check - "As things stand, we remain stuck with the fantasy target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. Everyone knows that there is not a snowball's chance in Hades of this being met, and yet no-one dares admit it for fear of the condemnation it invites. So we have a problem; all the political pressure on chief executives and those who finance them is to stop all new investment in fossil fuels so as to meet decarbonisation goals. Yet global demand for hydrocarbons shows no sign of abating, and in many parts of the world it continues to rise strongly. Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine has been a powerful reminder of what happens when even a relatively small proportion of the world's supply of oil and gas is removed; it has brought the UK and wider European economy to its knees."
Starmer is about to be humiliated by the global retreat from net zero - "This could be the beginning of the end of net zero. Eight years ago, it burst into our lives, a rapturous crusade of ambitious legislation, geopolitical grandstanding and share-boosting green PR. Today, what so many have exalted as an era of rapid, momentous change looks set to go down as the biggest damp squib in Western history. Naturally, the broadcast media’s focus is firmly fixed on Rishi Sunak, most recently on his pledges on North Sea oil and gas. But it is not just our Prime Minister who is being forced to commit sacrilege against the green cause. While Germany – the world leader in combustion engine technology – is busy trying to kill an EU bid to ban conventional cars, Macron has told Brussels to “pause” the growth of its investment-deterring green regulations which he seemingly fears is deterring investment. Meanwhile, Sweden – the country that triggered the stampede towards enshrining net zero into law back in 2017 – has quietly abandoned its pledge to be 100 per cent renewable by 2045. Unsurprisingly, many in the Labour Party are determined not to face up to this. They prefer to pretend that what we are witnessing is not the international implosion of net zero, but the self-immolation of Sunak... His mentor, Tony Blair, has already turned up the pressure. In an interview last week, the former PM started to lay the groundwork for a net-zero row-back on the centre-Left, warning that the public should not be asked to do a “huge amount” on climate change when China is emitting so much. The intervention is unlikely to have gone down well in the Starmer camp... the geopolitics of net zero are shifting beneath the UK’s feet. Indeed, the whole project may have been fatally derailed by a series of global earthquakes. One is the Ukraine war. Russia’s rebellion against the liberal order has made energy security the immediate priority of Western states, however much green campaigners might like to pretend that intermittent wind power is Britain’s route to ending reliance on imported energy. As the US enjoys a bumper coal revival, the EU has become bogged down in a spat over the prolongation of coal subsidies – with cash-strapped Eastern countries set to get their way against Germany. The pandemic delivered another devastating blow. Many predicted that lockdowns would usher in a new era of paradisiacal eco-living. Professionals would trade in the morning train scrum for home working, in turn boosting the sales of artisan delis in their leafy low traffic neighbourhoods. In reality, the post-Covid cost of living crisis has scuppered the ruling class’s great gamble on voters absorbing the costs of net zero. If before the question was whether people would put up with tax hikes and new boiler costs, today the question is whether they can financially sustain them at all. Meanwhile, some of the companies that were supposed to be leading the charge through game-changing green technology are being compelled to prioritise clearing their debts and delivering a profit to shareholders... the real killer blow to net zero is the new Cold War with China... from Washington to Westminster, it is at last dawning on politicians that Beijing has seized on net zero to gain a foothold in energy infrastructure, dominating the manufacture of everything from wind turbines to EV battery software. The bottom line is the West’s almost biblical belief that climate change is the greatest threat facing humanity has been tested by a series of plagues – and finally crumbled"
The Empty Radicalism of the Climate Apocalypse - "As many environmentalists and even elected Democrats have come to believe that serious climate disruption is already upon us, it has become fashionable to call for a World War II-style mobilization to fight climate change. But virtually no one will actually call for any of the sorts of activities that the United States undertook during the war mobilization—rationing food and fuels, seizing property, nationalizing factories or industries, or suspending democratic liberties. Nationalize health insurance through Medicare for All? Sure. Nationalize the power sector or the automobile industry? Not so much as a word about it from progressives or democratic socialists advocating a Green New Deal. The environmental literature, both scholarly and advocacy, is similarly rife with calls to drastically cut air travel and meat consumption. But the mere suggestion from critics on the right that the Green New Deal would require restrictions on eating hamburgers (not without cause) and flying provoked howls from environmentalists, who insisted that such claims were just standard conservative smear tactics... the turn away from dialectical materialism by the New Left, the hostility of the environmental movement toward economic development and big, centralized infrastructure, and the strong anticorporate stance of the public interest movements, left the post-’60s, post-Marxist environmental left with an extremely limited set of interventions that it was willing to countenance as the climate issue came into view in the late 1980s... Green opposition to nuclear energy and hydroelectric dams has evolved into skepticism of centralized grids and infrastructure planning. The soft energy path centered around wind and solar energy and energy efficiency was constructed, by Amory Lovins and his compatriots in the 1970s, explicitly as an alternative energy infrastructure, philosophically and institutionally as much as technologically... Most renewable energy today comes not from homes clad in solar panels but from enormous, industrial-scale wind, solar, and biomass facilities. Moreover, scaling renewable energy such that it might contribute much to the fight against climate change will require exactly the sort of large, centralized, and technocratic institutions that Lovins railed against in the 1970s: to permit huge new renewable generation facilities over the objections of local communities; to build an enormous new transcontinental transmission network to bring electricity from places that are ideal to generate it with wind and solar technology to the urban and industrial centers where it will be utilized; to co-locate renewable generation capacity with infrastructure and industry that can use the large surpluses of energy that massive renewable energy generation will produce during times of low grid demand; and to coordinate the deployment and operations of intermittent sources of energy with demand management and energy storage needs across vast geographic regions. And therein lies the rub. Progressive environmental advocates have long framed the failure to make headway on the climate issue in egalitarian terms—that the fossil fuel industry and other corporate interests are thwarting the will of the people—to which the solution is more egalitarianism: more protest, more community organizing, more bottom-up democracy, and more decentralized technology. But whether hydro and nuclear or wind and solar energy, the only remotely plausible path to the sorts of changes that many environmentalists now demand, such as zero net emissions by 2030, or stabilizing global temperatures at 1.5 degrees Centigrade above preindustrial levels, would require top-down, centralized, technocratic measures that most environmentalists are unwilling to seriously embrace... It is convenient for progressives to point the finger at conservatives for declining faith in public institutions, and for environmentalists to blame science denial for the failure of publics and governments to rally to the cause of climate action. And there is surely plenty of blame to go around. But progressives and environmentalists have done plenty of damage themselves—constructing a worldview that has rejected centralized planning and technocratic institutions and that depends on exactly the sort of “policy-based evidence-making” that they have long accused conservative intellectuals and activists of engaging in. Since their conjoined births in the 1960s and ’70s, post-Marxist progressivism and environmentalism have built strongholds in the nation’s universities, mostly in the social sciences, from which an alternate set of facts, values, and politics has been constructed. In this world, the history of modernization and urbanization has been entirely one of enclosure and expropriation, not aspiration and agglomeration; our continuing dependence on fossil fuels is an enormous conspiracy foisted upon humanity by extractivists; we can power the entire world with distributed and intermittent sources of renewable energy; poor Indians and Africans need only solar panels and batteries so that they might continue to live simple agrarian lives with a few modern conveniences; and smallholder farms, farmer’s markets, and urban gardens are the solution to both the environmental impacts of the global food system and enormous disparities in health outcomes in low-income communities of color."
A climate change hystericist tried to mock me as stupid and a science denier for commenting that climate change ideology was post-Marxist
Of course even with calls to suspend democratic liberties because of climate change, we will still be told that linking environmental hysteria to Communism is something only paranoid far right conspiracy theorists do
‘A new way of life’: the Marxist, post-capitalist, green manifesto captivating Japan - "The climate crisis will spiral out of control unless the world applies “emergency brakes” to capitalism and devises a “new way of living”, according to a Japanese academic whose book on Marxism and the environment has become a surprise bestseller. The message from Kohei Saito, an associate professor at Tokyo University, is simple: capitalism’s demand for unlimited profits is destroying the planet and only “degrowth” can repair the damage by slowing down social production and sharing wealth."
Clearly flinging the world headlong into an incredibly expensive energy transition while cratering GDP because of de-growth is a great idea, and it will be capitalism's fault when it fails
Jeff Jacoby on X - "#CarbonFootprint: Al Gore's home consumes more electricity in 1 year than the average US family uses in 21 years."
Boris Johnson should drop the green pieties. People want work, independence, dignity - "There will come a moment when Boris Johnson discovers that however much mainstream approval the climate change movement has achieved in theory, its popularity has not yet been subjected to the test that matters for a governing party: will embracing this policy make it impossible for many ordinary people to provide for themselves and their families in the way that they have come to expect? In case it has escaped the notice of those presently in government (or in opposition), let us be clear about the greatest lesson that the Thatcher political revolution taught all prospective governing parties: there is nothing - absolutely nothing - more important to the functioning majority of the electorate than the ability to earn a living, and the self-respect that comes with providing for one’s household. You can ask people to make concessions in their everyday behaviour or some sacrifices in their lifestyle choices for the good of The Planet. But if you mess with their livelihoods or deprive their families of basic necessities like affordable fuel and food, you will enter the valley of electoral death. And it is precisely that, it becomes clear, which climate activism is proposing - although its most publicity-seeking extreme wing seems unaware of this. Insulate Britain has actually issued a statement demanding that the government take action to “cut our carbon emissions, eliminate fuel poverty and help hard-working families with their rising energy bills.” Seriously? Are they not aware that green policies – the elimination of coal-fired energy and the reliance on carbon neutral fuels – are directly responsible for rising energy bills and fuel poverty? Which brings us on to what is the most politically dangerous territory in any advanced democracy: the cost of living. Significant increases in the price of essential commodities like energy, transport and food have undermined the popular support of governments in the past even when those increases could be credibly ascribed to causes beyond their control. What we are now seeing before our eyes is a deliberate decision to enact policies which will – at least in the short and medium term (which is to say, for the lifespan of most adults) – raise the cost of consuming those things which are essential to modern life. Indeed many of the more excitable leaders of the climate movement make clear that it is modern life itself which is to blame for the coming apocalypse. Greta Thunberg, in her latest pronouncement, condemns Britain for having initiated the Industrial Revolution, that momentous series of innovations which made present-day comforts and mass prosperity possible. To get things into some sort of perspective, could the more astute political strategists in Downing Street ask themselves whether voters are more likely to be concerned about the outcome of the Cop26 climate change summit – or the terrifying increase in their energy bills? And will they believe that the Government should be making Britain’s responsibility for global warming its top priority, as opposed, say, to the failings of public sector services like the availability of GP appointments?... There is nothing shameful or invidious about this. To put economic survival and the needs of one’s family first, is not selfish or irresponsible. Indeed, it is the essence of personal responsibility"
From 2021
Politicians say lots about wildfires, except when arson charges laid | Toronto Sun - "police in Quebec have charged a man with arson for several allegedly deliberately set fires in northern Quebec in what was a major criminal investigation that could be the stuff of movies. It’s an inconvenient truth that is not getting as much attention as plumes of smoke that filled the air and skylines of major cities like New York, Montreal and Toronto in June. “We’re seeing more and more of these fires because of climate change,” Trudeau posted on June 7. “These fires are affecting everyday routines, lives and livelihoods, and our air quality. We’ll keep working – here at home and with partners around the world – to tackle climate change and address its impacts.” But now Quebec police have charged a 37-year-old man with arson in connection with what the CBC reports as “numerous forest fires that burned earlier this summer in the province’s north.” Brian Paré, of Chibougamau, 700 km north of Montreal, was booked in court Thursday and will be held until a bail hearing scheduled for Monday. It will be interesting to see if he has the same kind of difficultly gaining bail as Tamara Lich did for her alleged mischief connected to the Ottawa Freedom Convoy... All of this has not been tested in court. These allegations do not account for every blaze in what has been a very bad year for forest fires. It all has to be proven in court. Environmental activists don’t have that burden when these use forest or wildfires to push their climate change agenda which includes bringing in expensive new carbon taxes. The arson charge in northern Quebec is not the sole criminal indictment related to this summer. Police in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, British Columbia and Northwest Territories have suspects before the courts charged with allegedly deliberately starting fires... None of this seems to matter to those who want to bring in strict climate change measures that cost and affect average people but still fly around the world on jets themselves. And they use every fire as a political wedge to push their story."
'It's very ugly': Tengah flat buyers unhappy over look of centralised cooling system - "Home owners of the new Build-to-Order (BTO) units in the west of Singapore have taken to Telegram chat groups to express their frustration over the alternative air-conditioning system, touted to be more sustainable and efficient than conventional air-conditioning. Of the six home owners that CNA spoke to, most were dissatisfied after seeing photos of the cooling system in an unfinished flat that were circulated online."
'Feels like a fan': Tengah home owners raise more issues with new centralised cooling system
Climate change means if you complain, you're a bad person
Rishi Sunak considering weakening key green policies - "Rishi Sunak is considering weakening some of the government's key green commitments in a major policy shift. It could include delaying a ban on the sales of new petrol and diesel cars and phasing out gas boilers... homeowners and landlords would be told that there will be no new energy efficiency regulations on homes. Ministers had been considering imposing fines on landlords who fail to upgrade their properties to a certain level of energy efficiency... Britons will be told that there will be no new taxes to discourage flying; no government policies to change people's diets; and no measures to encourage carpooling. Mr Sunak is also likely to rule out what he sees as burdensome recycling schemes. The government had reportedly been considering a recycling strategy in which households would have had "seven bins" - with six separate recycling bins plus one for general waste."
Doesn't he know that blaming greedy companies for skyrocketing costs due to climate change hysteria is enough to dupe the left? Then again, they blame the Tories too
Europe’s self-inflicted depression - "EU ambassadors held their annual conference last week, and some surprisingly frank things were said for a meeting of diplomats. Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, quite openly excoriated the assembled ambassadors. The European model is no longer working, he said: ‘The United States [takes] care of our security. China and Russia provided the basis of our prosperity. This is a world that is no longer there.’ He even argued that in a world of resurgent nationalism Europe’s self-image as ‘the land of reason’ may no longer have universal appeal. ‘We underestimate the role of emotions and the persisting appeal of identity politics’, he said. ‘More and more’, he warned, ‘the rest of the world is not ready to follow’ the European model. This marks a clear change in tone from the complacent end-of-history mindset which persisted in the EU even into the late 2000s. Yet Borrell still remains in a minority. Too many in the EU are clinging to the idea that the current global turmoil is just a phase, and that a return to the world of the 1990s is just around the corner... the conditions of the world economy in the early 20th century did not allow industry or capital to move elsewhere. Offshoring and outsourcing were not really an option. So, even after the worst kind of recession, a period of growth would reliably follow. But do the conditions that allowed 20th-century economies to bounce back still exist today? They might in the US, as its leadership in many key industries of the 21st century attests. But we should be less sanguine about Europe. It seems unbelievable now, but at the turn of the century it was still possible to buy a high-quality mobile phone made by European technology companies, like Siemens, Ericsson or Nokia. Even TVs and other entertainment equipment were often produced in Europe. Today, however, these markets are almost exclusively dominated by the US and Asia. This bodes ill for the EU. It means that the current recession – and its driver, a massive shortage of energy – will not necessarily be followed by a period of modernisation and growth. Quite the opposite. It could well lead to Europe’s rapid deindustrialisation. The markets could well wake up to this fact rather soon. As trust in a full European recovery crumbles, borrowing costs will begin to rise, putting immense pressure on the highly indebted welfare states of Europe. EU member states are fortunate that, during uncertain economic times, many investors still see the Old Continent as a relatively safe haven (though they still prefer the US). But the European economy is coasting on fumes. As scholars Wim Naudé and Paula Nagler of the Institute for Labour Economics have written, Germany’s economy is ossifying. They argue that over the past 150 years, Germany has become less competitive across the board, from education to technology and innovation. Their analysis most likely applies to other European countries, too. Who will stop Europe’s economies from falling into decline? Even during times of extreme recession and even depression in the 20th century, Europeans could count on high levels of entrepreneurial energy and intellectual capital. This ensured a successful reconstruction after an economic downturn (or the devastation of a world war). But these energies have been drained and discouraged, replaced by pie-in-the-sky green ideology. What makes Europe’s predicament particularly frustrating is that most of the damage has been self-inflicted. The EU once had plenty of natural gas of its own, but then domestic-gas production halved between 2011 and 2021. Germany once had solid electricity production with nuclear power, until this was largely phased out. Germany was, until relatively recently, an economic powerhouse. But as Greta Thunberg became more influential than the average prime minister, the anti-energy policies chipping away at Europe’s industrial base have accumulated. It has taken Germany 15 years to build a single airport. Permits to expand hydroelectric power in Austria took a decade to obtain. And it doesn’t look like European governments will ever support fracking or research into genetically modified organisms. This is a recipe for deindustrialisation. In an economy so hostile to entrepreneurialism, where will investment come from? For many, the answer seems to lie in an ever-expanding state, which will supposedly paper over every problem through more government spending. But more spending with less production will lead to ever increasing inflation. To which the only solution sought is… more government spending. There is almost no will among the elites to break out of this cycle. Europe’s economic woes have only just begun."