I recently read an article in the Spectator about COP26, which is scheduled to be held in Glasgow in early November and according to the article, the once climate sceptic, Boris Johnson is now an enthusiastic supporter of this gathering no doubt encouraged by his 'Green' fiancée Carrie Symonds and also his father who has brought into the current ‘Green’ agenda.
COP 26 stands for Conference of the Parties, and will be attended by countries that signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - a treaty agreed in 1994. The 2021 meeting will be the 26th meeting hence COP26.
Climate Change was once called Global Warming, until our planet didn’t warm as predicted despite an increase in CO2. This is a topic I feel I know something about having read 17 books on the subject. The link with THA is that for a major policy issue, there is no bigger in terms of costs, the decisions are being made by previous and the recent government, pressured by the well organised and financed Green Movement, while completely ignoring the views of the public. This, as with many issues, increasing shows the gap between politicians and the people.
The Green priority and current fad involve a push for 'Net Zero' in carbon emissions which our government has committed us to achieve by 2045 with an estimated cost of £3 trillion. Three trillion is a huge number so what exactly does it look like?
The now universal definition of million is one thousand thousand. A billion is one thousand million and a trillion is a thousand billion.
Another way to look at this figure of three trillion is to consider how long in time three trillion seconds is. So, for example: -
A million seconds = 11 days
A billion seconds = 32 years
A trillion seconds = 32,000 years so three trillion = 96,000 years
A final measure or comparison is to consider the government’s budget expenditure for 2020 which was around 928 billion so nearly £1 trillion.
By any measure you care to consider £3 trillion is a huge figure and I believe unsustainable but supported and bandied about by most of the out of touch, incompetent, impressionable, ignorant, supine and self-seeking politicians.
Now it is very important to realise, for those who may not be aware, that with regards media coverage of CC the BBC held a secret meeting in 2006 which decided that the debate was settled and beyond dispute and they issued an instruction to all employees that they should only report CC in the context of being 'man-made'. You only have to observe all the media's output on CC to realise they nearly all follow the same line.
Interestingly despite the media's pro man-made CC stance the public's opinion on the matter, despite at least 20 years of pro media coverage, is far from unanimous as this survey illustrates albeit the question asked is very simplistic.
The two points I would make are first that while 35% are very concerned that makes 65%, a clear majority, only fairly or not very concerned and second imagine how many more would not be concerned if the media coverage was more balanced and allowed a fair share of the coverage to come from Climate Realists. Interestingly CC advocates call sceptics ‘Deniers’ to tar them with the same brush as ‘Holocaust Deniers’ a tactic that currently works quite well for them.
The big issue is where in this debate is the public’s view considered and the answer is that it isn’t and the government forges ahead on the out pouring’s of CC alarmists although it should be note that not one previous doomsday prediction about our climate, form those associated with the CC industry has ever come true as seen here - https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
Finally our fourth demand would allow the people, if enough of them wished it, to have their say in an advisory referendum with the official campaign having to allow equal time for both sides of the debate and that I believe is far more democratic than the current situation where an increasing discredited PM can, under the influence of his fiancée, commit our country to spend £3 trillion to achieve ‘Net Zero’ which I and an increasing contingent in the scientific community believe to be almost entirely unnecessary.