X Close

The Dutch farmers’ party victory is a warning to the green movement

BBB leader Caroline van der Plas reacts to the results of the Netherlands' Provincial Council elections. Credit: Getty

March 21, 2023 - 7:00am

Last week, Dutch voters went to polls to elect their provincial councils and the country’s Senate. The full results are now in — and show that the populist Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB) has won an even bigger victory than expected.

With over 19% of the vote, the BBB finished clearly out in front in a very crowded field. What makes this triumph all the more remarkable is that the party didn’t even exist four years ago. It has come out of nowhere to redefine the political landscape. 

The dramatic rise of the BBB is a warning to the green movement. That’s because the party was formed in opposition to anti-pollution laws that threaten the livelihoods of thousands of small farmers. For this kind of movement to make so much headway in so little time in such a progressive country shows what can happen when green laws go wrong.  

Nor is this a one-off. Most dramatically, there were the French gilets jaunes protests of 2018 and 2019. Though this violent eruption was motivated by discontent with life in general and President Macron in particular, the spark that lit the fire was anger at an increase in fuel duty. The tax rise was justified on environmental grounds, but the protesters saw it as an attack on the living standards of hard-pressed workers. Macron was forced to scrap the policy. 

In Germany, support for the Greens — which is part of the coalition government — is now on the slide. Some polls show the party falling to fourth place behind the Right-wing populist AfD. Part of the reason for that is a proposal to accelerate the phasing out of oil and gas heating in homes. Householders will have to fork out thousands of euros for heat pumps instead. It doesn’t help that much of the electricity needed to power the heat pumps will come from coal-fired power stations — which Germany still relies on thanks to the Greens’ insane crusade to shut down the country’s existing nuclear power stations. 

Meanwhile, London Mayor Sadiq Khan is encountering vociferous opposition to his plan to extend the capital’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) — and especially his attempt to link the anti-ULEZ movement to the far-Right.  

So are we seeing a popular uprising against greenery in all its forms? Probably not — as UnHerd’s own polling shows, big-ticket environmental objectives like Net Zero still command widespread support. The likes of Nigel Farage have tried to turn ecoscepticsm into the new Euroscepticism, but they’ve failed. 

Inane slogans like “Net Zero is net stupid” are clearly not hitting home. However, what does rile up the voters is when green measures impose disproportionate costs on large parts of the population. Whether we’re talking Dutch farmers, German householders or motorists in the outer London suburbs, this is the worst possible time to be demanding large sums of money from struggling businesses and families. Such costs are even harder to swallow when fossil fuel companies are making record profits and the world’s virtue-signalling panjandrums are still rocking up to Davos in private jets. 

It’s time to stop giving policymakers a free pass. It’s not enough for their policies to be green: they also have to be fair, and be seen to be fair. In this respect, the environmental movement needs to take the lead — because if its supporters don’t hold governments to account for badly designed and inequitable green policies, then others will.  


Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

85 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Goodhand
MG
Mark Goodhand
1 year ago

“big-ticket environmental objectives like Net Zero still command widespread support”

People support Net Zero unthinkingly, because schools and the media have told them to.

They’ve accepted the conflation of CO2 emissions with air pollution as traditionally understood, and they don’t understand the global or historical situation.

What is the optimal temperature for a planet that has ranged from snowball to hothouse? What good does it do to pursue Local Net Zero aggressively if China, India and even Germany are still burning coal?

When you ask most people “Do you support Net Zero?”, you may as well ask them “Are you a good person?”. Some others who agree see it as a noble long-term ambition, but not something we should rush.

When reality starts to bite, people start to think critically. Rapid Local Net Zero is an ambition that doesn’t survive critical thought .

Arkadian X
AA
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

When you ask most people “Do you support Net Zero?”, you may as well ask them “Are you a good person?”.

Quite! I see it pretty much daily in my work.

Robbie K
RK
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

Ah all those poor stupid people who don’t understand, but it’s ok, because you’re here to correct their wrong think.
The irony is that you are in the minority, although not within this local tribe of deniers and sceptics thriving in the echoes of one another’s grumbles.
What you do get right is there needs to be a global concensus, as again called for by the IPCC yesterday in their stark report on the future.But it won’t happen.

Adam Bacon
AB
Adam Bacon
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Steven Koonin ( ex climate advisor to Obama, and now a critic of the whole process) observes, in his seminal book ‘Unsettled’ that the reports for policymakers produced by the IPCC rarely represent the more nuanced conclusions of the scientists whose work they are supposedly summarising.

For whatever reasons, they become ramped up with alarmism, for the consumption of said policymakers and the populace at large.

.

Robbie K
RK
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam Bacon

Koonin is guilty of that himself in ‘Unsettled’.

Koonin’s intervention into the debate about what to do about climate risks seems to be designed to subvert this progress in all respects by making distracting, irrelevant, misguided, misleading and unqualified statements about supposed uncertainties that he thinks scientists have buried under the rug.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/

Graeme Cant
GC
Graeme Cant
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Koonin is guilty of that himself in ‘Unsettled’.
In your opinion. “Scientific American” is not an unbiassed assessor. It is a committed protagonist in the debate on anthropogenic climate change and has been for some years.
I found Koonin helpful and largely balanced – and I have read widely on the topic.

Jim Veenbaas
JV
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

This is literally nothing but an SA smear job. What are the misleading statements by Koonin? Is this the same SA that supports medical intervention for children suffering from gender dysphoria?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
ER
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Covid

Graeme Cant
GC
Graeme Cant
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Koonin is guilty of that himself in ‘Unsettled’.
In your opinion. “Scientific American” is not an unbiassed assessor. It is a committed protagonist in the debate on anthropogenic climate change and has been for some years.
I found Koonin helpful and largely balanced – and I have read widely on the topic.

Jim Veenbaas
JV
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

This is literally nothing but an SA smear job. What are the misleading statements by Koonin? Is this the same SA that supports medical intervention for children suffering from gender dysphoria?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
ER
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Covid

Jane H
JH
Jane H
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam Bacon

It’s just another tool in the global totalitarian agenda.

Robbie K
RK
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam Bacon

Koonin is guilty of that himself in ‘Unsettled’.

Koonin’s intervention into the debate about what to do about climate risks seems to be designed to subvert this progress in all respects by making distracting, irrelevant, misguided, misleading and unqualified statements about supposed uncertainties that he thinks scientists have buried under the rug.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/

Jane H
JH
Jane H
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam Bacon

It’s just another tool in the global totalitarian agenda.

Jim Veenbaas
JV
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Hey Robbie, you would think that after 35 years of this, there would be one electric grid somewhere in the world run completely by wind and solar. Yet there is not a single one. Why is this the case? Why are the countries with the highest energy costs, such as Denmark and Germany, the ones with the deepest penetration of wind and solar?

Robbie K
RK
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Well the Germans deactivated their nuclear power, a mindnumbingly stupid decision that castrated their own climate goals.

Jim Veenbaas
JV
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

I’m totally on board with net zero if it’s done through nuclear. The problem is no one is embracing nuclear. This should be another red flag about the seriousness and intent of net zero.

Chris Wheatley
CW
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Yep. See my post on Wylfa B. If the guys who glue themselves to the M25 hire a bus and hang around the Welsh Assembly, we might get proper action on a nuclear power station.

Chris Wheatley
CW
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Yep. See my post on Wylfa B. If the guys who glue themselves to the M25 hire a bus and hang around the Welsh Assembly, we might get proper action on a nuclear power station.

Jim Veenbaas
JV
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

I’m totally on board with net zero if it’s done through nuclear. The problem is no one is embracing nuclear. This should be another red flag about the seriousness and intent of net zero.

Robbie K
RK
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Well the Germans deactivated their nuclear power, a mindnumbingly stupid decision that castrated their own climate goals.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Covid

Adam Bacon
AB
Adam Bacon
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Steven Koonin ( ex climate advisor to Obama, and now a critic of the whole process) observes, in his seminal book ‘Unsettled’ that the reports for policymakers produced by the IPCC rarely represent the more nuanced conclusions of the scientists whose work they are supposedly summarising.

For whatever reasons, they become ramped up with alarmism, for the consumption of said policymakers and the populace at large.

.

Jim Veenbaas
JV
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Hey Robbie, you would think that after 35 years of this, there would be one electric grid somewhere in the world run completely by wind and solar. Yet there is not a single one. Why is this the case? Why are the countries with the highest energy costs, such as Denmark and Germany, the ones with the deepest penetration of wind and solar?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Covid

Arkadian X
AA
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

When you ask most people “Do you support Net Zero?”, you may as well ask them “Are you a good person?”.

Quite! I see it pretty much daily in my work.

Robbie K
RK
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

Ah all those poor stupid people who don’t understand, but it’s ok, because you’re here to correct their wrong think.
The irony is that you are in the minority, although not within this local tribe of deniers and sceptics thriving in the echoes of one another’s grumbles.
What you do get right is there needs to be a global concensus, as again called for by the IPCC yesterday in their stark report on the future.But it won’t happen.

Mark Goodhand
Mark Goodhand
1 year ago

“big-ticket environmental objectives like Net Zero still command widespread support”

People support Net Zero unthinkingly, because schools and the media have told them to.

They’ve accepted the conflation of CO2 emissions with air pollution as traditionally understood, and they don’t understand the global or historical situation.

What is the optimal temperature for a planet that has ranged from snowball to hothouse? What good does it do to pursue Local Net Zero aggressively if China, India and even Germany are still burning coal?

When you ask most people “Do you support Net Zero?”, you may as well ask them “Are you a good person?”. Some others who agree see it as a noble long-term ambition, but not something we should rush.

When reality starts to bite, people start to think critically. Rapid Local Net Zero is an ambition that doesn’t survive critical thought .

Stephen Walsh
SW
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago

“…big-ticket environmental objectives like Net Zero still command widespread support”. That’s because voters have not connected big-ticket environmental objectives with the policies which are beginning to immiserate their lives. But the attempt to achieve these big-ticket objectives will inevitably transform the lifestyles of western populations massively for the worse – you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

I don’t know. Covid really demonstrated to me that most people are thoughtless and even when they know they are wrong they would prefer to be wrong than oppose the ‘current thing.’ The more education people have the more likely they are to demonstrate these characteristics. We all dream that one day the penny will drop and the people will rise up – but it is much more likely that like the proverbial frog in warming water they will slowly be boiled.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

I don’t know. Covid really demonstrated to me that most people are thoughtless and even when they know they are wrong they would prefer to be wrong than oppose the ‘current thing.’ The more education people have the more likely they are to demonstrate these characteristics. We all dream that one day the penny will drop and the people will rise up – but it is much more likely that like the proverbial frog in warming water they will slowly be boiled.

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago

“…big-ticket environmental objectives like Net Zero still command widespread support”. That’s because voters have not connected big-ticket environmental objectives with the policies which are beginning to immiserate their lives. But the attempt to achieve these big-ticket objectives will inevitably transform the lifestyles of western populations massively for the worse – you ain’t seen nothing yet.

N Satori
NS
N Satori
1 year ago

Net Zero may “command widespread support” as Peter Franklin says but that is probably be due to widespread ignorance of its implications. Add to that the major lack of dissenting voices prepared to challenge all the green activist obsessions in politics, education and the broadcast mainstream media.
The last major piece of climate change scepticism I can recall seeing on British television was “The Great Global Warming Swindle” on Channel 4 in 2007! (still available on YouTube if anyone is interested).
With dissenters driven to the margins, denounced as deniers or dimissed as cranks and flat-earthers it is no surprise that a widespread majority believe that urgent measures must be taken to ‘tackle the climate emergency’.
And to keep that “emergency” pot boiling the UN/IPCC have just published their latest alarmist report. BBC’s Justin Rowlatt was gleefully brandishing it last night along with the stern message that we are not doing enough to ‘tackle the climate emergency’.

N Satori
N Satori
1 year ago

Net Zero may “command widespread support” as Peter Franklin says but that is probably be due to widespread ignorance of its implications. Add to that the major lack of dissenting voices prepared to challenge all the green activist obsessions in politics, education and the broadcast mainstream media.
The last major piece of climate change scepticism I can recall seeing on British television was “The Great Global Warming Swindle” on Channel 4 in 2007! (still available on YouTube if anyone is interested).
With dissenters driven to the margins, denounced as deniers or dimissed as cranks and flat-earthers it is no surprise that a widespread majority believe that urgent measures must be taken to ‘tackle the climate emergency’.
And to keep that “emergency” pot boiling the UN/IPCC have just published their latest alarmist report. BBC’s Justin Rowlatt was gleefully brandishing it last night along with the stern message that we are not doing enough to ‘tackle the climate emergency’.

D Oliver
D Oliver
1 year ago

For the record, ‘the Green movement’ is the entire political establishment in many countries. This Dutch result could be repeated in those countries – if voters are given the option.

D Oliver
DO
D Oliver
1 year ago

For the record, ‘the Green movement’ is the entire political establishment in many countries. This Dutch result could be repeated in those countries – if voters are given the option.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

A most interesting and encouraging essay, thank you.

The greatest enemy to the peace of the world is NOT Mr Putin and his incompetent Legions, nor even Chairman Xi and his Mongoloid Hordes, but the Green Movement *.

A more pernicious organisation would be hard to imagine, yet it seems to have the fanaticism of some first century monotheistic cult and thus is a clear and present damage to us all.

The epic Dutch Revolt of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries was a stunning victory against the forces of orthodoxy, the Catholic Church, and Habsburg Spain, It is fascinating to see the Dutch are again in the vanguard of this new conflict with the Green Monster. Bravo!

(* An apposite term as Green has always been associated with Evil!)

Nicky Samengo-Turner
NS
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

The eco sandaloid national socialist stormtroopers…

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

The eco sandaloid national socialist stormtroopers…

CHARLES STANHOPE
CS
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

A most interesting and encouraging essay, thank you.

The greatest enemy to the peace of the world is NOT Mr Putin and his incompetent Legions, nor even Chairman Xi and his Mongoloid Hordes, but the Green Movement *.

A more pernicious organisation would be hard to imagine, yet it seems to have the fanaticism of some first century monotheistic cult and thus is a clear and present damage to us all.

The epic Dutch Revolt of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries was a stunning victory against the forces of orthodoxy, the Catholic Church, and Habsburg Spain, It is fascinating to see the Dutch are again in the vanguard of this new conflict with the Green Monster. Bravo!

(* An apposite term as Green has always been associated with Evil!)

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

It’s good to see Dutch voters pushing back. They have the most senate seats, but not a clear majority. Will see whet happens – if smaller parties unite to control the senate.

Would like to know what the author means when he says most people support net zero. This is totally depressing. Anyone with any understanding of net zero cannot possibly support it.

jane baker
jane baker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Because most people,including me?,don’t understand it,but it sounds like the nice option. The one good people should be in favour of.

Billy Bob
BB
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

In theory I think most people would support it. All things being equal I’d rather have little to no pollution than the current levels, however the trade off is a sharp decline in living standards which I’m not currently prepared to accept. I’ve no problem with switching to greener options where possible, but it has to be pragmatic rather than ideological

james elliott
james elliott
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

He means most people in the media have been bribed to support it.

jane baker
jane baker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Because most people,including me?,don’t understand it,but it sounds like the nice option. The one good people should be in favour of.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

In theory I think most people would support it. All things being equal I’d rather have little to no pollution than the current levels, however the trade off is a sharp decline in living standards which I’m not currently prepared to accept. I’ve no problem with switching to greener options where possible, but it has to be pragmatic rather than ideological

james elliott
JE
james elliott
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

He means most people in the media have been bribed to support it.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

It’s good to see Dutch voters pushing back. They have the most senate seats, but not a clear majority. Will see whet happens – if smaller parties unite to control the senate.

Would like to know what the author means when he says most people support net zero. This is totally depressing. Anyone with any understanding of net zero cannot possibly support it.

Richard Maslen
RM
Richard Maslen
1 year ago

It has to be fair. This is not “Double-Dutch”! Farmers will support anti-pollution laws on agricultural techniques and fertilisation so long as they do not suffer to ease the consciences of the rest of us. Do not penalise or lecture farmers – take them with you.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Maslen

The worst part is the hypocrisy. If the Dutch shut down 3,000 farms, they are not saving the environment. They are merely shifting ag production away from the most productive and efficient location in the world. This gap in production will be filled by farmers in some other location, like Brazil, where the environmental footprint is 10x as worse. So food will be more expensive and the environment is dirtier.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Maslen

The worst part is the hypocrisy. If the Dutch shut down 3,000 farms, they are not saving the environment. They are merely shifting ag production away from the most productive and efficient location in the world. This gap in production will be filled by farmers in some other location, like Brazil, where the environmental footprint is 10x as worse. So food will be more expensive and the environment is dirtier.

Richard Maslen
Richard Maslen
1 year ago

It has to be fair. This is not “Double-Dutch”! Farmers will support anti-pollution laws on agricultural techniques and fertilisation so long as they do not suffer to ease the consciences of the rest of us. Do not penalise or lecture farmers – take them with you.

Chris Wheatley
CW
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago

‘Net Zero is Net Stupid’ is a terrible slogan. How about, ‘Net Zero is Gross’.
It is time for the counter revolution. Get these idiots who want to stop life out of the way. The Green movement reminds me of behaviour of the settlers in New England – “We’ve got to a wonderful new country. Let’s make everyone as miserable as possible so we don’t enjoy it too much.” Puritanism.
Which reminds me. The decision on the future of Anglesey’s nuclear reactor (Wylfa B) is imminent. This has been shut down for a while but can be brought on line again at some cost. Wales is very Labour and full of Greens so things don’t look good. The problem is not only the reactor but also the new, improved power lines to bring it into the Grid. The farmers don’t want new power lines, unless of course you pay them a lot of money. The last time Wylfa was discussed, mid-Wales was full of protesters. Not exactly full maybe, but you know what I mean.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

The boring bit follows.
Not everybody knows this but overhead power lines are bare wires – no coating. This is because the passage of electricity generates heat and the moving air is a natural coolant.
The development of Wylfa needs new power lines to join it to the grid. From Pembroke in the west of Wales there is a big 400kV transmission line along the south coast and into England. This is one of the main lines in the UK. Originally this was built to bring power from a large oil-fired power station in Milford Haven. When this power station reached the end of its life the Greens wanted it closed for good. In Greenspeak oil = bad.
So to feed west Wales the direction of the electricity flow was reversed. Power came from the east, from as far as England. But then there were problems feeding Tata Steel in Port Talbot. So a new, small power station was built in Port Talbot, next to the steel works – about 20 years ago. More naughty fossil-fuels. The Greens want this phased out but….
Where will West Wales get its power? Feeding from east to west over large distances leads to huge power losses so 10% (at least) of the generated power goes to heat. The answer is to refurbish Wylfa nuclear reactor and join it to the 400 kV line in the south. This means new power lines which ‘are bad for the environment’. How can that be?
Here we see that there are two environments – The Environment (capital E) meaning carbon and nasty gases and the environment (small ‘e’) meaning that people don’t want to see pylons. So, they say, take the power underground!!
This costs roughly 50 times more than going overhead but what is good for the environment is bad for the Environment. The underground cables get hot and need to be cooled and are surrounded by jackets of oil feeding back to underground tanks which are electrically cooled. What if there are oil leaks? Well, there are leaks and the underground system has to be constantly policed. In reality, overhead is the only possibility for large rural distances.
What is good for the Environment is bad for the environment and vice versa.

Last edited 1 year ago by Chris Wheatley
N Satori
NS
N Satori
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Useful info for those of us who are not electrical engineers – and not boring at all.
As for the Environment – that’s a place where the well-off live (secure in the rightness of their cause). They don’t want it spoiled by the needs of the masses for affordable food, shelter and energy.

N Satori
N Satori
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Useful info for those of us who are not electrical engineers – and not boring at all.
As for the Environment – that’s a place where the well-off live (secure in the rightness of their cause). They don’t want it spoiled by the needs of the masses for affordable food, shelter and energy.

james elliott
james elliott
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

“Net Zero is Net Poverty”?

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

My slogan is simple, and true: “Greens Hate Humanity”

Chris Wheatley
CW
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

The boring bit follows.
Not everybody knows this but overhead power lines are bare wires – no coating. This is because the passage of electricity generates heat and the moving air is a natural coolant.
The development of Wylfa needs new power lines to join it to the grid. From Pembroke in the west of Wales there is a big 400kV transmission line along the south coast and into England. This is one of the main lines in the UK. Originally this was built to bring power from a large oil-fired power station in Milford Haven. When this power station reached the end of its life the Greens wanted it closed for good. In Greenspeak oil = bad.
So to feed west Wales the direction of the electricity flow was reversed. Power came from the east, from as far as England. But then there were problems feeding Tata Steel in Port Talbot. So a new, small power station was built in Port Talbot, next to the steel works – about 20 years ago. More naughty fossil-fuels. The Greens want this phased out but….
Where will West Wales get its power? Feeding from east to west over large distances leads to huge power losses so 10% (at least) of the generated power goes to heat. The answer is to refurbish Wylfa nuclear reactor and join it to the 400 kV line in the south. This means new power lines which ‘are bad for the environment’. How can that be?
Here we see that there are two environments – The Environment (capital E) meaning carbon and nasty gases and the environment (small ‘e’) meaning that people don’t want to see pylons. So, they say, take the power underground!!
This costs roughly 50 times more than going overhead but what is good for the environment is bad for the Environment. The underground cables get hot and need to be cooled and are surrounded by jackets of oil feeding back to underground tanks which are electrically cooled. What if there are oil leaks? Well, there are leaks and the underground system has to be constantly policed. In reality, overhead is the only possibility for large rural distances.
What is good for the Environment is bad for the environment and vice versa.

Last edited 1 year ago by Chris Wheatley
james elliott
james elliott
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

“Net Zero is Net Poverty”?

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

My slogan is simple, and true: “Greens Hate Humanity”

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago

‘Net Zero is Net Stupid’ is a terrible slogan. How about, ‘Net Zero is Gross’.
It is time for the counter revolution. Get these idiots who want to stop life out of the way. The Green movement reminds me of behaviour of the settlers in New England – “We’ve got to a wonderful new country. Let’s make everyone as miserable as possible so we don’t enjoy it too much.” Puritanism.
Which reminds me. The decision on the future of Anglesey’s nuclear reactor (Wylfa B) is imminent. This has been shut down for a while but can be brought on line again at some cost. Wales is very Labour and full of Greens so things don’t look good. The problem is not only the reactor but also the new, improved power lines to bring it into the Grid. The farmers don’t want new power lines, unless of course you pay them a lot of money. The last time Wylfa was discussed, mid-Wales was full of protesters. Not exactly full maybe, but you know what I mean.

Lorne Carmichael
Lorne Carmichael
1 year ago

We are not going to stop climate change. Every dollar a small country spends on this is wasted so long as the large offenders continue to burn coal.
Instead we should be spending money to prepare for climate change. Every dollar we spend here has real benefits for the citizens of the country doing the spending.

Lorne Carmichael
Lorne Carmichael
1 year ago

We are not going to stop climate change. Every dollar a small country spends on this is wasted so long as the large offenders continue to burn coal.
Instead we should be spending money to prepare for climate change. Every dollar we spend here has real benefits for the citizens of the country doing the spending.

Caractacus Potts
Caractacus Potts
1 year ago

CO2 is 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. Of that tiny trace element about 3 percent of it is man made. Of that tiny part of that tiny trace the the UK produces about 3 percent. It’s a mind-bogglingly insignificant fraction of a fraction of a fraction. In reality the Net Zero scam is about gaining power and profit by virtue signalling.
Lack of affordable energy is destroying the UK economy as its businesses are uncompetitive. It’s killing the high street and leisure sectors. It’s emptying supermarket shelves as farmers cannot afford to produce food out of season (or in some cases even in season). Most importantly it hurts the poorest the most. Net Zero is the biggest disaster of our time.

Last edited 1 year ago by Caractacus Potts
Andrew Martin
Andrew Martin
1 year ago

When Net zero was thought up back in 2008 by the preposterous Ed Milliband and supported 100% by the Tories, the climate change committee said it would cost around £1 trillion to impose. National Grid has said that to decarbonise just one sector not including manufacturing or heavy Industries would cost £4 trillion alone. That is why it is going to bankrupt us. Why didn’t the supposedly cost conscience Conservative party not see this coming?

Andrew Martin
Andrew Martin
1 year ago

When Net zero was thought up back in 2008 by the preposterous Ed Milliband and supported 100% by the Tories, the climate change committee said it would cost around £1 trillion to impose. National Grid has said that to decarbonise just one sector not including manufacturing or heavy Industries would cost £4 trillion alone. That is why it is going to bankrupt us. Why didn’t the supposedly cost conscience Conservative party not see this coming?

Caractacus Potts
Caractacus Potts
1 year ago

CO2 is 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. Of that tiny trace element about 3 percent of it is man made. Of that tiny part of that tiny trace the the UK produces about 3 percent. It’s a mind-bogglingly insignificant fraction of a fraction of a fraction. In reality the Net Zero scam is about gaining power and profit by virtue signalling.
Lack of affordable energy is destroying the UK economy as its businesses are uncompetitive. It’s killing the high street and leisure sectors. It’s emptying supermarket shelves as farmers cannot afford to produce food out of season (or in some cases even in season). Most importantly it hurts the poorest the most. Net Zero is the biggest disaster of our time.

Last edited 1 year ago by Caractacus Potts
Jürg Gassmann
Jürg Gassmann
1 year ago

It bears remembering that the Dutch nitrate rules have nothing to do with “green” – the neoliberal Dutch government has perverted the intent of perfectly rational EU rules. That’s why this is not a problem anywhere else in Europe.
Also, the German greens have continued their march from the left to the neoliberal right and from party of peace to the party of war, first pioneered by Joschka Fischer’s agreement to the NATO attack on Serbia – in Germany, they’re described as “Olivgrün” (military olive drab).
Switzerland, a very environmental-minded country, two years ago rejected a draft law that essentially allowed business to continue as usual, with fig-leaf measures that imposed costs and hassle on consumers.
The backlash is not against “green”, it is against “movement”. Brainless neoliberal and patronising tokenistic hair-shirt “solutions” will no longer fly; honesty and serious engagement is needed.

Jürg Gassmann
Jürg Gassmann
1 year ago

It bears remembering that the Dutch nitrate rules have nothing to do with “green” – the neoliberal Dutch government has perverted the intent of perfectly rational EU rules. That’s why this is not a problem anywhere else in Europe.
Also, the German greens have continued their march from the left to the neoliberal right and from party of peace to the party of war, first pioneered by Joschka Fischer’s agreement to the NATO attack on Serbia – in Germany, they’re described as “Olivgrün” (military olive drab).
Switzerland, a very environmental-minded country, two years ago rejected a draft law that essentially allowed business to continue as usual, with fig-leaf measures that imposed costs and hassle on consumers.
The backlash is not against “green”, it is against “movement”. Brainless neoliberal and patronising tokenistic hair-shirt “solutions” will no longer fly; honesty and serious engagement is needed.

Susan Grabston
Susan Grabston
1 year ago

For the Dutch tampering with their agricultural system triggers the Dutch Famine of 1944-45. It is what gave rise to their extraordinary achievement of being the world’s 2nd large food exporter by value. This is within living memory and the rumours about Tristate a megalopolis which has Rutte’s backing is being planned exacerbates things.
More widely the pushback against Net Zero will continue. Even the citizens of Oxford are up in arms, ULEZ expansion is being actively fought in the high courts, and Southend has backed off. Fairness is one criterion for support, but for many whilst climate change is real, “emergency” status is less clear. Add to that the fact that we would need to halt economic progress in large swathes of the developing world to meet targets, as well as the valid questions being raised about ESG as corporatists seek to manipulate capital, there is one hell of a fight in the offing. The politicisation of all of this will only make it harder, not least because the charge is being led by globalists, and a horizontal vs vertical (nationalist) world is the hottest political ticket around.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago
Reply to  Susan Grabston

I broadly agree but I thought it was “2nd largest agricultural produce exporter” which includes flowers.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago
Reply to  Susan Grabston

I broadly agree but I thought it was “2nd largest agricultural produce exporter” which includes flowers.

Susan Grabston
Susan Grabston
1 year ago

For the Dutch tampering with their agricultural system triggers the Dutch Famine of 1944-45. It is what gave rise to their extraordinary achievement of being the world’s 2nd large food exporter by value. This is within living memory and the rumours about Tristate a megalopolis which has Rutte’s backing is being planned exacerbates things.
More widely the pushback against Net Zero will continue. Even the citizens of Oxford are up in arms, ULEZ expansion is being actively fought in the high courts, and Southend has backed off. Fairness is one criterion for support, but for many whilst climate change is real, “emergency” status is less clear. Add to that the fact that we would need to halt economic progress in large swathes of the developing world to meet targets, as well as the valid questions being raised about ESG as corporatists seek to manipulate capital, there is one hell of a fight in the offing. The politicisation of all of this will only make it harder, not least because the charge is being led by globalists, and a horizontal vs vertical (nationalist) world is the hottest political ticket around.

Lesley Keay
LK
Lesley Keay
1 year ago

I cam across an interesting site the other day: UK Fires, https://ukfires.org, They have produced a report saying how the UK can reach Net Zero by 2050. However, it acknowledges that this is impossible as technological advances will not be achieved in the timescale so what is needed is cultural change. That is, in how we as individuals live, consume, commute and create. Amongst the things they advise will be necessary is for people to use cars less (ergo, make it harder hence we have ULEZ etc). They of course advocate all the usual things, using bikes, buses trains which really doesn’t help me as I live at the top of big hill nearly three miles from the nearest main road. They also advise that flying will need to stop for an undefined period as will shipping. More importantly, they say that all beef and sheep production will also need to stop by 2050 and be replaced by vegetables. Well, given we are currently converting large areas of farmland to solar farms not sure how that’s going to work. And if we are not importing food from abroad because shipping and flying is banned then get used to eating turnips. And people mocked Coffey.

Lesley Keay
Lesley Keay
1 year ago

I cam across an interesting site the other day: UK Fires, https://ukfires.org, They have produced a report saying how the UK can reach Net Zero by 2050. However, it acknowledges that this is impossible as technological advances will not be achieved in the timescale so what is needed is cultural change. That is, in how we as individuals live, consume, commute and create. Amongst the things they advise will be necessary is for people to use cars less (ergo, make it harder hence we have ULEZ etc). They of course advocate all the usual things, using bikes, buses trains which really doesn’t help me as I live at the top of big hill nearly three miles from the nearest main road. They also advise that flying will need to stop for an undefined period as will shipping. More importantly, they say that all beef and sheep production will also need to stop by 2050 and be replaced by vegetables. Well, given we are currently converting large areas of farmland to solar farms not sure how that’s going to work. And if we are not importing food from abroad because shipping and flying is banned then get used to eating turnips. And people mocked Coffey.

james elliott
james elliott
1 year ago

“big-ticket environmental objectives like Net Zero still command widespread support’

Among the media, which is effectively bribed to support them, yes.

The average person, if he understands what net zero actually results in, is *vehemently* opposed.

For Net Zero and the Great Reset, read the Great Leap Forward and the Holodomor.

Centrally planned disasters, rooted in Utopian ignorance and leading, inevitably, to mass starvation.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  james elliott

Yes. But today it is being taught in primary schools. My daughter explained to me last month about the school projects for the best way to combat the climate problem. When your primary teacher tells you, it must be right.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  james elliott

Yes. But today it is being taught in primary schools. My daughter explained to me last month about the school projects for the best way to combat the climate problem. When your primary teacher tells you, it must be right.

james elliott
james elliott
1 year ago

“big-ticket environmental objectives like Net Zero still command widespread support’

Among the media, which is effectively bribed to support them, yes.

The average person, if he understands what net zero actually results in, is *vehemently* opposed.

For Net Zero and the Great Reset, read the Great Leap Forward and the Holodomor.

Centrally planned disasters, rooted in Utopian ignorance and leading, inevitably, to mass starvation.

Jerry Mee-Crowbin
Jerry Mee-Crowbin
1 year ago

Why is it that with, apparently, 51 comments listed, we are only permitted to see 15?

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago

Because somebody has complained?? More mind control.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago

People are abusing the moderation system unfortunately.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago

Because somebody has complained?? More mind control.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago

People are abusing the moderation system unfortunately.

Jerry Mee-Crowbin
Jerry Mee-Crowbin
1 year ago

Why is it that with, apparently, 51 comments listed, we are only permitted to see 15?

jane baker
jane baker
1 year ago

Everyone wants “the polluter to pay” because,of course,the polluter is a fat cat businessman making obscene profits from poisoning rivers and smoking up the air. We all know who “the polluter” is and it’s not us. But when it’s taken down to minute level and it’s individual car drivers etc then people resent it. At the moment we are hearing a lot of self righteous outrage about Water Companies,who provide us with potable water we can drink straight from the tap and it won’t kill us,so show some gratitude folks. These villains are releasing untreated sewage into rivers.
And who is creating all this muck. People pooing. And you can’t stop that.

J. Edmunds
JE
J. Edmunds
1 year ago

The optimal temperature for a planet of 8 billion people is that for which our advanced agricultural systems, capable of feeding that number, have been – erm – optimised. Which is, the temperature of the recent past.
Change it much, either way, and our crops will no longer be “at home”, yields will plummet, there won’t be enough to go round, and people will fight and kill each other over what’s left. Until numbers are reduced to what can be supported.
Of course if you go back far enough in the fossil record you can find a time when the temperature was as high as the IPCC is predicting, and life went on. But what sort of life was it? In this case we have to go back about 3 million years, to when the earliest recognisable ancestors of humans walked the earth.
They were few in number. And if the place where they lived became inhospitable, they moved, without the modern construct of national borders to stop them. And the animals they hunted for food moved with them.
The same rise in temperature today would be a whole lot worse. Faced with unsurvivable peaks in temperature, declining crop yields, and catastrophic storms and flodds that destroy homes, crops and livelihoods, people are required by the authorities to stay put. And if they do try to move to a more temperate climate, they get Cruella Braverman sending them back to the hot house.

J. Edmunds
J. Edmunds
1 year ago

The optimal temperature for a planet of 8 billion people is that for which our advanced agricultural systems, capable of feeding that number, have been – erm – optimised. Which is, the temperature of the recent past.
Change it much, either way, and our crops will no longer be “at home”, yields will plummet, there won’t be enough to go round, and people will fight and kill each other over what’s left. Until numbers are reduced to what can be supported.
Of course if you go back far enough in the fossil record you can find a time when the temperature was as high as the IPCC is predicting, and life went on. But what sort of life was it? In this case we have to go back about 3 million years, to when the earliest recognisable ancestors of humans walked the earth.
They were few in number. And if the place where they lived became inhospitable, they moved, without the modern construct of national borders to stop them. And the animals they hunted for food moved with them.
The same rise in temperature today would be a whole lot worse. Faced with unsurvivable peaks in temperature, declining crop yields, and catastrophic storms and flodds that destroy homes, crops and livelihoods, people are required by the authorities to stay put. And if they do try to move to a more temperate climate, they get Cruella Braverman sending them back to the hot house.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago

To be effective climate change mitigation is going to be difficult, and it is going to hurt. The boomer generation are used to cheap energy and cheap roast beef, so when that’s taken away then naturally they are going to resist.
As shown by the IPCC yesterday the world is on a path to catastrophe, the only genuine thing that can stop this now is a technical solution, because politics has failed.

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

It’s going to hurt but it won’t be effective. For relatively small service based economies to attempt to change global weather patterns through “climate change mitigation” as currently designed will be about as effective as ritual sacrifice.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

Unfortunately you are correct. As I said above, politics has failed, there is no global consensus because of economic protectionism. But what we also see in the Dutch case is protectionism at a more national and local level. And this is the people who actually understand the risks of climate change, it’s not like they are in denial or anything. And on that note it’s just remarkable that some folks are still in total denial, calling it a hoax or nonsense – they are so afraid of finding out they have been wrong all along that they put up a brick wall of bias. It’s not about being ‘left’ or ‘right’ either, it’s really an appeal to the welfare of future generations, who will face droughts, floods, war and massive migration.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

So what should we do? Use martial law to enforce green laws and practices? Switch off gas pipes? Cut down meat consumption? Eat insects? All go electric? Stop flushing the toilet?
Me? I’d rather live with all the conveniences of modern life than live according to the dictates of green policies. It’s not that I’m in denial – the climate’s been changing ever since the world came into creation – it’s just that I don’t want to put my fate in the hands of people who hold ‘the environment’ to be more sacred than the aspirations of individual people, even it it is to the benefit of ‘future generations’. As we saw with COVID policies and lockdowns, giving too much free-rein to politicians eventually leads to excessive overreach and abuse of power.
We’re fine for now, the planet isn’t going anywhere. If this current generation is anything to go by, future generations will curse us no matter what we do.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

We all want the conveniences of modern life, including me. We need to pursue technical solutions to reduce greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere, because creating them is not going to stop and implementing net zero policies in their current format are unrealistic.

Robbie K
RK
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

We all want the conveniences of modern life, including me. We need to pursue technical solutions to reduce greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere, because creating them is not going to stop and implementing net zero policies in their current format are unrealistic.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

So what should we do? Use martial law to enforce green laws and practices? Switch off gas pipes? Cut down meat consumption? Eat insects? All go electric? Stop flushing the toilet?
Me? I’d rather live with all the conveniences of modern life than live according to the dictates of green policies. It’s not that I’m in denial – the climate’s been changing ever since the world came into creation – it’s just that I don’t want to put my fate in the hands of people who hold ‘the environment’ to be more sacred than the aspirations of individual people, even it it is to the benefit of ‘future generations’. As we saw with COVID policies and lockdowns, giving too much free-rein to politicians eventually leads to excessive overreach and abuse of power.
We’re fine for now, the planet isn’t going anywhere. If this current generation is anything to go by, future generations will curse us no matter what we do.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

Unfortunately you are correct. As I said above, politics has failed, there is no global consensus because of economic protectionism. But what we also see in the Dutch case is protectionism at a more national and local level. And this is the people who actually understand the risks of climate change, it’s not like they are in denial or anything. And on that note it’s just remarkable that some folks are still in total denial, calling it a hoax or nonsense – they are so afraid of finding out they have been wrong all along that they put up a brick wall of bias. It’s not about being ‘left’ or ‘right’ either, it’s really an appeal to the welfare of future generations, who will face droughts, floods, war and massive migration.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

What utter nonsense!
Do grow up or return to ‘Twitter’, you are such an obvious Left wing loony.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago

Explains a lot about your world view if you consider me to be left wing, it did make me chuckle. I’m not on social media and I can’t grow up, if I did, I wouldn’t be me. I could well be a loony however for commenting amongst this rabble.

Jim Veenbaas
JV
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Hey Robbie. I appreciate your misinformed opinions. I hope someday we convince you of your error.

PS. Boomers can afford the increased costs. It will disproportionally hurt poor people.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Hey Robbie. I appreciate your misinformed opinions. I hope someday we convince you of your error.

PS. Boomers can afford the increased costs. It will disproportionally hurt poor people.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago

Explains a lot about your world view if you consider me to be left wing, it did make me chuckle. I’m not on social media and I can’t grow up, if I did, I wouldn’t be me. I could well be a loony however for commenting amongst this rabble.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

… but somehow the catastrophe never seems to arrive. And with every failure to materialise it becomes more catastrophic. Strange, that.

Philip Crowley
Philip Crowley
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Climate Catastrophe is the b*****d child of Chicken Little and the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Strange indeed. In my youth they were scaring us with an impending ice age. That morphed into global warming, which morphed into climate change. Imagine how much money this colossus has hoovered up over the past sixty years.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Have a little flick through on New Scientist then tell us again there are no catastrophies.
https://www.newscientist.com/article-topic/climate-change/

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

My ipad is full of articles and books by scientists disputing the ‘rise in catastrophes’ with statistics
The NS is rabidly unscientific on this subject.

Doug Pingel
Doug Pingel
1 year ago
Reply to  Anna Bramwell

Quite. It was a NS article c1975 about an impending “Ice Age” that was the “heads-up” for me but as you say tney have joined the ranks of “The Science is settled” but they forget that Science is never settled. Since the turn of the century I have been following a number of scientists on this subject including a Radio Astronomer based in Peurto Rico. His circulation of news was through the Amateur Radio world but he was muzzled by Obama.Still, his message got out and I am glad to see recent articles, letters, etc. about the fast approaching “Minimum” which will have to satisfy those who wanted a full blown Glaciation Period. I don’t suppose there will be Fairs on the River Thames but I’m sure there will be a lot of of ice on Cardiff Bay.

Doug Pingel
Doug Pingel
1 year ago
Reply to  Anna Bramwell

Quite. It was a NS article c1975 about an impending “Ice Age” that was the “heads-up” for me but as you say tney have joined the ranks of “The Science is settled” but they forget that Science is never settled. Since the turn of the century I have been following a number of scientists on this subject including a Radio Astronomer based in Peurto Rico. His circulation of news was through the Amateur Radio world but he was muzzled by Obama.Still, his message got out and I am glad to see recent articles, letters, etc. about the fast approaching “Minimum” which will have to satisfy those who wanted a full blown Glaciation Period. I don’t suppose there will be Fairs on the River Thames but I’m sure there will be a lot of of ice on Cardiff Bay.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Ethiopia has been suffering drought for over forty years. Perhaps the fault lies less with the weather and more with a corrupt government regime.

Nick Faulks
Nick Faulks
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

So many more catastrophes, yet the cost of insuring against them hasn’t gone up – those reinsurance companies are really stupid, they must be losing so much money. Oh, they’re not.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Faulks

And the number of climate related deaths is down 98% from 100 years ago, and has been falling decade after decade after decade.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Faulks

And the number of climate related deaths is down 98% from 100 years ago, and has been falling decade after decade after decade.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

We’ve been though this before. I’ve linked the IPCC documents that explicitly state low confidence for increased disasters.

Jerry Mee-Crowbin
JM
Jerry Mee-Crowbin
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

If you fancy a little flick why not flick to the Extinction Clock here:
https://extinctionclock.org/
It lists all the dreadful warnings of impending and sometimes imminent doom – and then shows whether they were accurate or not. Guess how many were correct! It should at least cheer you up Robbie!

Last edited 1 year ago by Jerry Mee-Crowbin
Robbie K
RK
Robbie K
1 year ago

I’m always jolly Jerry, but that raised a chortle or two.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago

I’m always jolly Jerry, but that raised a chortle or two.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

My ipad is full of articles and books by scientists disputing the ‘rise in catastrophes’ with statistics
The NS is rabidly unscientific on this subject.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Ethiopia has been suffering drought for over forty years. Perhaps the fault lies less with the weather and more with a corrupt government regime.

Nick Faulks
Nick Faulks
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

So many more catastrophes, yet the cost of insuring against them hasn’t gone up – those reinsurance companies are really stupid, they must be losing so much money. Oh, they’re not.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

We’ve been though this before. I’ve linked the IPCC documents that explicitly state low confidence for increased disasters.

Jerry Mee-Crowbin
Jerry Mee-Crowbin
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

If you fancy a little flick why not flick to the Extinction Clock here:
https://extinctionclock.org/
It lists all the dreadful warnings of impending and sometimes imminent doom – and then shows whether they were accurate or not. Guess how many were correct! It should at least cheer you up Robbie!

Last edited 1 year ago by Jerry Mee-Crowbin
Philip Crowley
Philip Crowley
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Climate Catastrophe is the b*****d child of Chicken Little and the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Strange indeed. In my youth they were scaring us with an impending ice age. That morphed into global warming, which morphed into climate change. Imagine how much money this colossus has hoovered up over the past sixty years.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Have a little flick through on New Scientist then tell us again there are no catastrophies.
https://www.newscientist.com/article-topic/climate-change/

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

’Boomer’ is a weasel word because you are frightened to use proper words. What you mean is ‘old people’. You are scared to say that so you revert to ‘boomer’. This shows how false you all are.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Sadly we are living in a period of time where young people have been taught to hate older people. It seems strange to me. When I was young I never assumed that old people owed me anything.

Last edited 1 year ago by Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Sadly we are living in a period of time where young people have been taught to hate older people. It seems strange to me. When I was young I never assumed that old people owed me anything.

Last edited 1 year ago by Julian Farrows
Graeme Cant
Graeme Cant
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Your jibe about “the boomer generation” makes clear you are a polemicist not a disinterested observer so I will read you as such.
Every generation is used to and needs cheap energy and cheap food. The Netherlands farmers are certainly mostly post-boomers and it is they who are voting against climate change policies, not their aging boomer customers.

Robbie K
RK
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme Cant

The boomer reference was inspired by the photograph at the top of the article.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Or, how about Gammon & Pineapple?

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Or, how about Gammon & Pineapple?

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme Cant

The boomer reference was inspired by the photograph at the top of the article.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

We seem to have been waiting for cafastrophe for several decades and many billions of pound in tge neantime the earth fas become greener due apparently to very small increases in CO2s. Btw how far have emissions been reduced since Kyoto or since Paris? And why should measures decreasing nitrous oxide emissions to water affect CO2 concentrations?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Anna Bramwell

No country in the world reduced emissions than the US, thanks to fracking and the widespread shift from coal to natural gas.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Anna Bramwell

No country in the world reduced emissions than the US, thanks to fracking and the widespread shift from coal to natural gas.

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Fear not Robbie K, I’m with you at least! I genuinely don’t understand the who deny that the earth is warming up, with ice in retreat, seas warming up and rising, and flora and fauna moving north (and presumably south) as the temperatures rise. Of course there is doubt as to what is most responsible, but since by far the most likely explanation is CO2 in the atmosphere we have to do something about it. If we don’t agitate for that then the technology required to do so will not advance fast enough. Continually parroting the view that as a ‘small country’ it isn’t our responsibility just doesn’t cut it.

And why there is this hatred of renewable energy is really beyond me – why would you want to rely on those few countries which control the most fossil fuel resources when serious investment in technology will allow cheaper and better fuel sources to be developed at ‘home’? Surely the very definition of ‘no brainer’?

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Sorry forgot to say – why is this a ‘left’ versus ‘right’ issue? It’s an issue which affects us all and demonising those who want to see us through it as ‘loony left’ or ‘woke’ is just crass.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Let me help. On UnHerd anything disagreeable is viewed as Left. Really, this confuses everybody. They mean government by mind control.
I don’t think you will find anybody who doesn’t believe that there has been a small amount of warming since 1975 – when the big fear was a new ice age.
The point is that the earth is nowhere as warm as it was about 800 years ago – then there were no boomers to blame and no cars either. None of the greens want to discuss this and as soon as anyone tries you get the name calling – denier, sceptic, etc. This is just childish.
Around the turn of the millennium there were two equal and opposite camps – those who said disaster was nigh and those who thought it wasn’t. It was agreed to ban the one side. Ban means: no articles in the New Scientist, no books for children excepting the one version, nothing on TV, no university professors. Nothing. You just couldn’t get a job if you argued.
Therefore: mind control. Therefore Left on UnHerd.

Last edited 1 year ago by Chris Wheatley
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Cancel culture literally started with the climate change debate. That’s the origin of the pejorative use of the word denier. Now we see it everywhere.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

It was agreed to ban the one side.

What do you mean by this? A ban on climate change denial? In all scientific publications, publishers, broadcasters, universities, globally? Sounds very sinister and conspiratorial!
Could it be that this was more likely a quest for accurate information and facts, as opposed to propaganda paid for by Exxon’s initiatives to muddle the truth?
Who do you trust as a source of information with integrity? Anyone? How about encyclopedia Britannica?

Chris Wheatley
CW
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

I guess you weren’t around when Delingpole was attacked and sacked by his newspaper – the Guardian I think – when professors were forced to take early retirement because they were on the wrong side.
Why do you think the people here are so anti-woke? Because woke tells you what to think and what to say.
If you and all of your friends on Twitter said over and over that old people were the cause and problem, then the government would be forced to make it a hate crime and you would be hunted down. Haven’t you ever wondered why people do not write, “It is a fault of the old.”? If they did say this, your whole movement would collapse. Try it. Keep saying it. Why not? If you are right you have nothing to lose.
But none of you will do it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

I guess you weren’t around when Delingpole was attacked and sacked by his newspaper – the Guardian I think – when professors were forced to take early retirement because they were on the wrong side.
Why do you think the people here are so anti-woke? Because woke tells you what to think and what to say.
If you and all of your friends on Twitter said over and over that old people were the cause and problem, then the government would be forced to make it a hate crime and you would be hunted down. Haven’t you ever wondered why people do not write, “It is a fault of the old.”? If they did say this, your whole movement would collapse. Try it. Keep saying it. Why not? If you are right you have nothing to lose.
But none of you will do it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Chris Wheatley
Jim Veenbaas
JV
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Cancel culture literally started with the climate change debate. That’s the origin of the pejorative use of the word denier. Now we see it everywhere.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

It was agreed to ban the one side.

What do you mean by this? A ban on climate change denial? In all scientific publications, publishers, broadcasters, universities, globally? Sounds very sinister and conspiratorial!
Could it be that this was more likely a quest for accurate information and facts, as opposed to propaganda paid for by Exxon’s initiatives to muddle the truth?
Who do you trust as a source of information with integrity? Anyone? How about encyclopedia Britannica?

Nick Faulks
Nick Faulks
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

I have no desire to rely on fossil fuel bought from a few, possibly unreliable, foreign countries. I would like to rely on the UK’s own sources, which are more than sufficient.

Jerry Mee-Crowbin
JM
Jerry Mee-Crowbin
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Faulks

We can, should, and will, one day when common sense returns, FRACK! This will keep us surviving until we get back to fission and then, with any luck, fusion. Nobody needs to freeze but under the Net Zero tragi-comedy, they will.

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago

Even the fracking companies agree that the UK is not a good place to frack! Wind and sun already generate between one quarter and one half of the UK’s electricity, cheaper than any other method, and the technology to harness tide and geothermal sources looks very promising. Why dismiss these when they are so obviously the future?

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago

Even the fracking companies agree that the UK is not a good place to frack! Wind and sun already generate between one quarter and one half of the UK’s electricity, cheaper than any other method, and the technology to harness tide and geothermal sources looks very promising. Why dismiss these when they are so obviously the future?

Jerry Mee-Crowbin
JM
Jerry Mee-Crowbin
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Faulks

We can, should, and will, one day when common sense returns, FRACK! This will keep us surviving until we get back to fission and then, with any luck, fusion. Nobody needs to freeze but under the Net Zero tragi-comedy, they will.

Jim Veenbaas
JV
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Meh. Temps are rising, sea level has been riding for 10,000 years. People don’t hear renewables. They just don’t work.

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

In what way don’t the wind and sun, which already generate between one quarter and one half of the UK’s electricity don’t work? You have really lost me there!

Jim Veenbaas
JV
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Because they are intermittent and unreliable. When the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow, you have no power. Sure, Britain might occasionally get 50% of its power from wind and solar, but there are other times when you get nearly 0%.

You can build thousands of wind turbines and solar panels, but you have to keep the natural gas and coal power plants because they are needed for backup. So now you have two duplicate systems. And you must pay the dispatchable plants enough money to cover their capital costs at half time usage. Then they must buy the fossil fuels for backup on spot markets where prices are much more volatile and expensive.

Another issue seldom discussed about wind and solar is their excessive environmental footprint. It takes something like 300 times the land mass to build a wind plant to match the output of a nuclear plant. And then there is the massive volume of concrete, copper and rare earth metals needed to build these facilities. This has an impact on the environment.

You would think after 35 years of endless promotion, there would be a demonstration project on any scale — small, medium, or large — to vindicate claims that wind and solar can power a modern economy. Yet here we are.

Tony Price
TP
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

So they do work then – good to know and that you admit that you were wrong. However they vary in output and need back-up, obviously.
Nobody has ever said that wind and solar energy can entirely power a modern economy – or at least under current battery technology, which is developing apace and may well lead to a smoothing out of energy generation before too long.
You comment on the environmental impact of wind/solar. I have seen what appear to be reliable figures which say that the ‘return’ on CO2 production (etc – I am no expert) is 25x for one and 50x for the other. Land mass of a wind plant v a nuclear plant – is that of any relevance, especially in a sea-bound nation? And the environmental impact of nuclear in both building and then disposing of waste is enormous – and very, very expensive.
Finally, dig around for the developmental possibilities of tide and geothermal generation – the technology proceeds apace.
I genuinely don’t understand why you have such a downer on renewables – they are the obvious answer to all of climate change (as currently understood), geopolitical stresses, other environmental impact and cost. Of course we ain’t there yet, but we will be as long as we don’t stop developing because of the naysayers. It’s called progress, or is that now a dirty word?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

This is a disingenuous interpretation of my comments. You’re right – wind and solar do work – in the very narrowest sense of the word work. Heck, they can even be useful in small amounts. But that’s where it ends.

You can’t just wave away the very real issues with renewables and pretend they don’t exist. Any nation that tries to go 100% wind and solar will destroy itself economically before it even gets close to that number.

Building two separate power systems will make energy production so expensive that it will drive out any industry that requires it as an input.
There is a reason that nations with the deepest penetration of renewables have the highest energy costs in the world, such as Germany and Denmark.

But you said it yourself – wind and solar can’t power a modern economy. So what’s the objective then? Reduce emissions a little bit? I don’t have an issue with wind and solar, as long as it’s used in an amount that doesn’t destroy the economy.

And you can argue that the land requirements of wind and solar are not an issue, but it is a massive one. To run the US on wind and solar would require a land mass greater than state of California. And you can’t simply dump all the wind in the sea and think it doesn’t have an environmental impact. It does – on the marine environment rather than land.

If you’re actually serious about reducing emissions, nuclear is the only viable options. And we know it works because France at one point generated 74% of its energy from nuclear. You would be shocked at how little waste is generated – I think one cup per person for their entire life – and how safely it can be stored.

Here’s the bottom line. We’ve been at this climate thing for 35 years. And in those 35 years, with trillions invested in wind and solar, there is not a single power grid in the entire world run by wind and solar. It’s been tried in plenty of places too, such as El Hierro in the Canary Islands.

I’ll just add one more thing. Wind and solar are not progress. They are technologies developed hundreds of years ago and discarded for better alternatives. It’s the antithesis of progress.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

This is a disingenuous interpretation of my comments. You’re right – wind and solar do work – in the very narrowest sense of the word work. Heck, they can even be useful in small amounts. But that’s where it ends.

You can’t just wave away the very real issues with renewables and pretend they don’t exist. Any nation that tries to go 100% wind and solar will destroy itself economically before it even gets close to that number.

Building two separate power systems will make energy production so expensive that it will drive out any industry that requires it as an input.
There is a reason that nations with the deepest penetration of renewables have the highest energy costs in the world, such as Germany and Denmark.

But you said it yourself – wind and solar can’t power a modern economy. So what’s the objective then? Reduce emissions a little bit? I don’t have an issue with wind and solar, as long as it’s used in an amount that doesn’t destroy the economy.

And you can argue that the land requirements of wind and solar are not an issue, but it is a massive one. To run the US on wind and solar would require a land mass greater than state of California. And you can’t simply dump all the wind in the sea and think it doesn’t have an environmental impact. It does – on the marine environment rather than land.

If you’re actually serious about reducing emissions, nuclear is the only viable options. And we know it works because France at one point generated 74% of its energy from nuclear. You would be shocked at how little waste is generated – I think one cup per person for their entire life – and how safely it can be stored.

Here’s the bottom line. We’ve been at this climate thing for 35 years. And in those 35 years, with trillions invested in wind and solar, there is not a single power grid in the entire world run by wind and solar. It’s been tried in plenty of places too, such as El Hierro in the Canary Islands.

I’ll just add one more thing. Wind and solar are not progress. They are technologies developed hundreds of years ago and discarded for better alternatives. It’s the antithesis of progress.

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

So they do work then – good to know and that you admit that you were wrong. However they vary in output and need back-up, obviously.
Nobody has ever said that wind and solar energy can entirely power a modern economy – or at least under current battery technology, which is developing apace and may well lead to a smoothing out of energy generation before too long.
You comment on the environmental impact of wind/solar. I have seen what appear to be reliable figures which say that the ‘return’ on CO2 production (etc – I am no expert) is 25x for one and 50x for the other. Land mass of a wind plant v a nuclear plant – is that of any relevance, especially in a sea-bound nation? And the environmental impact of nuclear in both building and then disposing of waste is enormous – and very, very expensive.
Finally, dig around for the developmental possibilities of tide and geothermal generation – the technology proceeds apace.
I genuinely don’t understand why you have such a downer on renewables – they are the obvious answer to all of climate change (as currently understood), geopolitical stresses, other environmental impact and cost. Of course we ain’t there yet, but we will be as long as we don’t stop developing because of the naysayers. It’s called progress, or is that now a dirty word?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Because they are intermittent and unreliable. When the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow, you have no power. Sure, Britain might occasionally get 50% of its power from wind and solar, but there are other times when you get nearly 0%.

You can build thousands of wind turbines and solar panels, but you have to keep the natural gas and coal power plants because they are needed for backup. So now you have two duplicate systems. And you must pay the dispatchable plants enough money to cover their capital costs at half time usage. Then they must buy the fossil fuels for backup on spot markets where prices are much more volatile and expensive.

Another issue seldom discussed about wind and solar is their excessive environmental footprint. It takes something like 300 times the land mass to build a wind plant to match the output of a nuclear plant. And then there is the massive volume of concrete, copper and rare earth metals needed to build these facilities. This has an impact on the environment.

You would think after 35 years of endless promotion, there would be a demonstration project on any scale — small, medium, or large — to vindicate claims that wind and solar can power a modern economy. Yet here we are.

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

In what way don’t the wind and sun, which already generate between one quarter and one half of the UK’s electricity don’t work? You have really lost me there!

Tony Price
TP
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Sorry forgot to say – why is this a ‘left’ versus ‘right’ issue? It’s an issue which affects us all and demonising those who want to see us through it as ‘loony left’ or ‘woke’ is just crass.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Let me help. On UnHerd anything disagreeable is viewed as Left. Really, this confuses everybody. They mean government by mind control.
I don’t think you will find anybody who doesn’t believe that there has been a small amount of warming since 1975 – when the big fear was a new ice age.
The point is that the earth is nowhere as warm as it was about 800 years ago – then there were no boomers to blame and no cars either. None of the greens want to discuss this and as soon as anyone tries you get the name calling – denier, sceptic, etc. This is just childish.
Around the turn of the millennium there were two equal and opposite camps – those who said disaster was nigh and those who thought it wasn’t. It was agreed to ban the one side. Ban means: no articles in the New Scientist, no books for children excepting the one version, nothing on TV, no university professors. Nothing. You just couldn’t get a job if you argued.
Therefore: mind control. Therefore Left on UnHerd.

Last edited 1 year ago by Chris Wheatley
Nick Faulks
NF
Nick Faulks
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

I have no desire to rely on fossil fuel bought from a few, possibly unreliable, foreign countries. I would like to rely on the UK’s own sources, which are more than sufficient.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Meh. Temps are rising, sea level has been riding for 10,000 years. People don’t hear renewables. They just don’t work.

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

It’s going to hurt but it won’t be effective. For relatively small service based economies to attempt to change global weather patterns through “climate change mitigation” as currently designed will be about as effective as ritual sacrifice.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

What utter nonsense!
Do grow up or return to ‘Twitter’, you are such an obvious Left wing loony.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Hugh Bryant
HB
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

… but somehow the catastrophe never seems to arrive. And with every failure to materialise it becomes more catastrophic. Strange, that.

Chris Wheatley
CW
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

’Boomer’ is a weasel word because you are frightened to use proper words. What you mean is ‘old people’. You are scared to say that so you revert to ‘boomer’. This shows how false you all are.

Graeme Cant
Graeme Cant
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Your jibe about “the boomer generation” makes clear you are a polemicist not a disinterested observer so I will read you as such.
Every generation is used to and needs cheap energy and cheap food. The Netherlands farmers are certainly mostly post-boomers and it is they who are voting against climate change policies, not their aging boomer customers.

Anna Bramwell
AB
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

We seem to have been waiting for cafastrophe for several decades and many billions of pound in tge neantime the earth fas become greener due apparently to very small increases in CO2s. Btw how far have emissions been reduced since Kyoto or since Paris? And why should measures decreasing nitrous oxide emissions to water affect CO2 concentrations?

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Fear not Robbie K, I’m with you at least! I genuinely don’t understand the who deny that the earth is warming up, with ice in retreat, seas warming up and rising, and flora and fauna moving north (and presumably south) as the temperatures rise. Of course there is doubt as to what is most responsible, but since by far the most likely explanation is CO2 in the atmosphere we have to do something about it. If we don’t agitate for that then the technology required to do so will not advance fast enough. Continually parroting the view that as a ‘small country’ it isn’t our responsibility just doesn’t cut it.

And why there is this hatred of renewable energy is really beyond me – why would you want to rely on those few countries which control the most fossil fuel resources when serious investment in technology will allow cheaper and better fuel sources to be developed at ‘home’? Surely the very definition of ‘no brainer’?

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago

To be effective climate change mitigation is going to be difficult, and it is going to hurt. The boomer generation are used to cheap energy and cheap roast beef, so when that’s taken away then naturally they are going to resist.
As shown by the IPCC yesterday the world is on a path to catastrophe, the only genuine thing that can stop this now is a technical solution, because politics has failed.