This is the last in a set of three essays on the history
of the deep green agenda, which has been pushed on us by the United Nations and
other alarmists for more than 50 years. And in particular, of the “climate
change” part of that agenda.
This essay will cover the period from 2019 to the present.
Some of it is a précis
of parts of an earlier, more detailed essay: [[i]].
In the second essay in this set, I left till later the
history of anti-car policies in the UK. I shall, therefore, exclude that
particular aspect of the green agenda from the present screed, and will return
to it later.
Extinction Rebellion
April 30th, 2019 was a bad day for every human
being in the UK. That day marked the start of a huge wave of government
activity, all directed towards killing the freedoms and prosperity of ordinary
people, in the name of some claimed (but, in reality, non-existent) climate
crisis.
On that day, minister Michael Gove met with Extinction
Rebellion (XR). The chumminess of this meeting was very concerning. And they
got to see Labour politicians, and the mayor of London, on the same visit.
XR has subsequently carried out protests, causing much
damage to property and serious inconvenience to many thousands of people,
particularly in London. It has also been accused of being a terrorist
organization.
“Climate emergency”
On the day following that meeting, the UK parliament
declared a “climate emergency.” Without any evidence that any such emergency
existed, and without even taking a vote.
In any case, as I showed in a recent essay here [[ii]],
there is in reality no “climate crisis.” The “emergency” of May 1st,
2019 only existed in the minds of those seeking to use climate alarm as an
excuse to hurt innocent people. Objectively, it was a scam.
Nett zero
In June 2019, the Tory government put forward, and the
parliament passed, a bill to set “a target for at least a 100% reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions (compared to 1990 levels) in the UK by 2050.” (At
least 100%? Maybe more? Crazy).
This target, called “nett zero,” replaced an earlier target
of an 80% cut from 1990 levels. This was at least the fourth time since 1992
that the UK government had moved the emissions goalposts. Always in the
direction of greater reductions, of course.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC), chaired by John
Selwyn Gummer, also known as Lord Deben, issued a report that supposedly
“justified” this. But it said little more than that they reckoned the cost of
“nett zero” measures might be 1-2% of UK GDP in 2050. That is hardly an
objective or exhaustive analysis! The CCC is supposed to be an independent and
impartial advisory body. But in my view, it’s about as impartial as Extinction
Rebellion.
UK Climate Assembly
Parliament also initiated a scheme of “citizens’ climate
assemblies,” one of the demands put forward by Extinction Rebellion. It’s very
concerning that in a so-called “democracy,” those who are supposed to serve the
people kow-towed to disruptive extremists, but never even bothered to ask us
the people what we thought.
Absolute Zero
In November 2019, a joint report called “Absolute Zero” was
published by five UK universities, using the collective moniker “UK FIRES.” It
proposed to force on to us “incremental changes to our habits and
technologies,” including cutting energy use by at least 40%, giving up eating
beef and lamb, and ceasing to use cement.
The proposals came over like the edicts of a crazed,
ultra-conservative dictator. And they made Soviet five-year plans look like a
cake-walk.
The general election of 2019
In a sense, the UK general election of December 2019
didn’t change anything, because it kept the Tories in power. One issue
completely dominated that election: Brexit. But the Tory manifesto proposed
“the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth.” Many
people, who wanted Brexit but didn’t care a damn about the green agenda, were
fooled into voting for that agenda by the Tories’ promise to “get Brexit done.”
The Tories had offered people a carrot with a huge turd on
it. And far too many people took the bait.
The “Great Reset”
In June 2020, we first heard about a so called “Great Reset.”
This was, supposedly, a proposal to spur economic recovery after the COVID
virus by acting “jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and
economies.” It is (was?) a project of the World Economic Forum, a Swiss-based consortium
of global big-business and political élites.
Al Gore is on the WEF board. And one of those unveiling the
“Great Reset” was (the then) Prince Charles. Who travels in helicopters and
private jets to give speeches about cutting CO2 emissions. What a
hypocrite.
The UK Climate Assembly report
The XR-inspired UK Climate Assembly produced a report in
September 2020. The assembly “asked citizens to listen to advice from climate
experts,” before setting them to make “a list of recommendations for how the
country should reach net-zero emissions by 2050.” All the “experts” involved
were alarmists, including the then chief executive of the CCC.
Having been told only about one side of the case, and being
asked for “solutions” to a non-problem, it is not surprising that the
assembly’s output was garbage. It recommended, among other things, a levy on
frequent fliers. A ban on the sale of petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2030-35.
And a switch to a more biodiversity-focused farming system. What a travesty of
“democracy” and “consulting the people!”
The Ten Point Plan
In November 2020, the UK government published their Ten
Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution. The phrase “green industrial
revolution” was lifted by the Tories straight out of Labour’s 2019 manifesto!
I set out my views on these matters here: [[iii]].
In summary, the proposals were, in no particular order: Not properly costed.
Not properly thought through. The benefits are unsure. Pie in the sky. Very
expensive. Seriously reducing, or even destroying, freedom and mobility for
many ordinary people. Disruptive and potentially dangerous. Likely to raise the
costs of travel and of trade. Requiring huge investments of money that people
don’t have, in order to bring about a lower standard of living than we have
now. Already been tried and failed in one country or another. Requiring huge
tax rises. And all but certain to tank.
The Sixth Assessment Report
As the date for the IPCC’s sixth assessment report (AR6)
approached, the IPCC published a series of Special Reports, each of which
seemed to be trying to raise the general level of alarm a little bit higher.
And when the physical science part of AR6, along with the
Summary for Policymakers, appeared in August 2021, the “hockey stick” was back!
They also, in effect, “airbrushed out” of the record the Roman and Mediaeval
Warm Periods and the Little Ice Age. The deceit was so obvious, we skeptics
didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Yet the UN secretary-general described the
situation as a “climate crisis” and as “code red for humanity.”
The Glasgow CoP meeting
Then there was the UN “Conference of the Parties” meeting
in Glasgow in November 2021. Its stated purpose was: “to accelerate action
towards the goals of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change.” And its theme was: “uniting the world to tackle climate
change.” Its most notable event was Boris Johnson’s hypocrisy in flying back
from Glasgow by private jet for no better reason than a dinner engagement.
The green leviathan, at last, encountered a degree of
resistance from a few countries, that had worked out that it wasn’t in their
interests to stay on that bandwagon much longer. That was encouraging; but not
nearly enough yet.
Ukraine
In February 2022, the Russians started a war in Ukraine.
This aggravated the energy problems we were already suffering, and started a
spiral of rising cost of living and inflation for us all. It also enabled the
alarmist camp to blame steeply rising energy costs on gas prices, rather than
on the true culprit, intermittent and unpredictable “renewable” energy sources that
de-stabilize the electricity grid.
Just Stop Oil
In April 2022, Extinction Rebellion and another extremist
group, Just Stop Oil, organized “mass protests” against human use of fossil
fuels. They claimed they would mobilize three and a half per cent of the UK
population (more than 2 million people!) Yet their protests were confined to
central London and a few oil depots. And only a few hundred were arrested.
Sri Lanka
In Sri Lanka, by early March 2022 a government-mandated
transition to organic agriculture had caused the production of rice (Sri
Lankans’ staple food) and tea (their main export) to plummet by more than 20%
in just a few months. Failure of the harvest led to the mass protests, that
during July unseated from power Sri Lankan president Rajapaksa and several of
his family. As of late July, 22 per cent of Sri Lankans were in need of food
aid.
What this showed is that politicians’ green meddling
costs, not only prosperity, but also peace and lives. It is not “climate
change” or “biodiversity loss” that are dangerous, but policies made in the
name of “fighting” them.
The Netherlands
In the Netherlands, the world’s second largest food
exporter, farmers had been protesting since 2019 against EU regulations to
halve emissions of gaseous nitrogen compounds, particularly ammonia, by 2030.
These regulations were part of the so-called “Green Deal.” The protests spread
to other countries, notably Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland.
And yet, it is not at all clear that emissions of nitrogen
compounds from farming have ever caused any significant negative effects. It is
claimed that there is a loss of “biodiversity” in certain areas that are part
of an EU project called “Natura 2000.” Yet, can anyone name even one species
that has become extinct in the last 30 years, with that extinction proven
beyond reasonable doubt to have been caused by modern farming practices?
This was deliberate destruction of the most productive
agricultural industry in the world. Furthermore, there are likely to be knock-on
effects on food security all over Europe. It is not surprising that the
political “climate” in the Netherlands since then has changed significantly in
favour of the farmers.
The Sharm-el-Sheikh CoP meeting
The CoP 27 climate meeting took place in November 2022 in
an Egyptian luxury resort. There were, as usual, many attendees arriving by
private jet. As so often, on top of their thinly veiled arrogance and pervasive
dishonesty, you could see the extreme hypocrisy of many climate alarmists. They
want to force draconian and damaging restrictions on how ordinary people live,
while themselves enjoying their jet-setting, limo-riding lifestyles, many of
them at taxpayer expense!
They agreed to a crazy idea, first mooted in 2012, called
a “damage and loss fund.” This is supposed to be paid into by Western taxpayers,
supposedly to compensate “vulnerable countries hit hard by climate disasters”
for the (unproven) bad effects on the climate, that are claimed to have been
caused by industrialization.
But this scheme is no more than a continuation and
enlargement of “foreign aid” scams already in place, that force poor people in
rich countries (that’s us) to pay vast sums for the benefit of rich people in
poor countries (like the Rajapaksa dynasty in Sri Lanka). Any Western
politician that has even been willing to contemplate such a scheme is a traitor
to those they are supposed to “represent.”
The UK Tory government
Meanwhile, the
Tory government continued to act as if they were above the rule of law. Many of
the lockdown laws they made were ethically very dubious, and seriously violated
the human rights of the people they were supposed to be serving. And they broke
their own laws, as shown by the Partygate scandal.
Almost every
week, there were proposals for new restrictions on our behaviour. And they, and
Labour after them, have continued to pursue schemes like “digital identity” and
“central bank digital currencies,” which will enable them to closely monitor
even our smallest transactions, and so to tax us yet more and more harshly.
Labour and “Change”
In July 2024, the UK
public kicked the Tories out at the general election. Labour, with their
manifesto called “Change,” got one of the biggest parliamentary majorities
since the 1930s, despite getting only 20% of eligible votes. Giving them, and
Mad Ed Miliband their nett zero tsar, carte blanche to do just
what they want. Which, predictably, is even worse than what the Tories were
doing to us.
Prime minister Keir
Starmer, at CoP 29 in Azerbaijan, made “an ambitious commitment to cut UK
emissions by 81 per cent by 2035, compared with 1990 levels.”
There was a private
member’s “climate and nature bill,” publicly supported by over 190 MPs,
including all 72 Liberal Democrats. It includes proposals as radical as ending
the use of fossil fuels as soon as possible, government taking over farming,
destroying economic freedom, and establishing a presumption against nuclear
power. I wrote about the bill here: [[iv]]. Its second reading was held in January
2025, but has now been adjourned until May 2026.
Despite all this, there
is a feeling of “climate change” in the air. A turning point, a tipping point,
call it what you will. There is, at last, a feeling that all the pressures that
our enemies have built up can be turned around, and made to rebound to their
disadvantage. Many people have felt it, as shown by Reform UK’s surge in
membership and popularity in recent months – even despite its internal
differences.
I myself sense this
change, too. The mainstream media, and those of the general public who still
let themselves be influenced by them, may continue to believe in the green and
climate agenda – for a while. But those of us, who concentrate on the evidence,
aren’t fooled. And the general public as a whole seem to be becoming less and
less taken in as time goes by.
2025: coming up Trumps?
On the other side of the pond, however, things are much
rosier since Donald Trump began his second term in the White House in January
2025. You can disagree with some of Trump’s policies – like the tariffs. But
his record over the last few months on climate and energy has been excellent.
He has challenged the 2009 EPA “endangerment” finding on
greenhouse gas emissions, that labelled carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.” It has
now been axed. He has (for the second time) ditched the 2015 Paris agreement.
He is seeking to relax fuel economy standards for vehicles. He is reversing a
ban on incandescent light bulbs, and restoring common sense to regulations on sinks,
showers, toilets, washing machines and dishwashers.
He has unleashed DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency)
on waste, fraud, abuse and overreach throughout the federal government. He is
planning job cuts of up to 65% at the EPA. He is re-introducing coal to the US energy
mix. He is re-instating leasing and expansion for Alaska’s oil and gas.
He is seeking to end the requirement for industrial plants
to report greenhouse gas emissions. He is rolling back many of the energy and
climate policies the Biden administration imposed, including subsidies. He has
delayed or cancelled many “green energy” projects. He is seeking to re-open a
uranium mine. And he has reversed a plan to remove four major hydro-electric
dams. Not a bad start in just a little over six months! Americans will be far
better off, economically and in their freedoms, because Trump has done these
things.
But probably the most far-reaching thing he has done is
issue an order to “restore gold-standard science”. It demands that
government-funded science, particularly in contested domains like climate
change and public health, return to first principles. It must meet the highest
standards of evidence, transparency and falsifiability.
He also commissioned a report from five prominent climate
realist scientists, that critically reviews the impacts of greenhouse gas
emissions on the US climate. The assessment is data driven, and considers
natural climate variability as well as human causes. In essence, they did what
the IPCC should have been doing all along. The report was published in early
August. It looks as if it meets the new “gold standard.” I hope it will prove
extremely influential, and will also open up public debate on the issues.
To conclude
I have little doubt that Donald Trump’s revolution in US
energy and climate policy will succeed. It already has too much public support,
and too much momentum, to be stopped. And its benefits will be noticed, in a
big way, by people in other countries. Then, it will be just a matter of time
before the deep green agenda is a nightmare of the past.
Those that have pushed the green agenda, and the climate
scam in particular, have lied to us and deceived us for decades. We are all
poorer and less free because of the deliberate, planned scams they have carried
out against us. By their actions, they have committed treason against our human
civilization. So, they deserve to be kicked out of our civilization, and denied
all its benefits. And they owe us reparations, too.
When the deep green agenda is dead at last, it will be time for blowback. And a “damage and loss fund.” From them, to us.
