By Paul Homewood
Why does The Conversation always feature extreme climate alarmists, but never put the other side of the story? (Apparently, this is what they call “academic rigour”!)
Without changes to people’s behaviour and lifestyles, it will be impossible for the UK to reach net zero emissions by 2050. But the government is failing to put in place the conditions that would enable this to happen – or even recognise its relevance in cutting emissions and meeting climate targets. Its laissez-faire approach of simply “going with the grain of consumer choice”, according to a recent report, has no chance of bringing about the urgent changes needed.
A House of Lords inquiry assessed the role of public behaviour in meeting climate and environmental goals. The report drew on evidence from leading experts on behavioural science and social change, as well as submissions from a wide range of organisations, including Tesco, Natural England and Cycling UK.
Among the criticisms levelled at the government were accusations that it places too much faith in unproven technologies to fix the climate, and is reluctant to communicate to the public the scale of social change needed to create a low-carbon society. The varying remits of different government departments charged with helping the public change their polluting behaviour were characterised as a “muddle” and “inadequate” to the task. In some instances, government actions have pushed people away from low-carbon choices, like offering a tax cut for domestic flights just before 2021’s UN climate summit in Glasgow.
Perhaps most uncomfortable for a government that has elevated economic growth as its foremost priority, the report stresses the need for absolute reductions in many of the commonplace activities that are driving the climate crisis. This includes people buying less of the things with sizeable environmental impacts, like long-haul flights, beef and products that use a lot of resources, such as fast-fashion clothing and electronics.
The article is written by a couple of nutty academics:
I am not quite sure why they are just attacking the UK government, given that no other country in the world, as far as I know, is doing what they propose.
And, if it has not occurred to them, we live in a democracy, where the public are supposed to decide how they live their lives. Not have decisions imposed on them by either psychology academics or politicians.
So let me offer the potty duo a piece of advice. As soon as any government starts to drastically curtail people’s liberties in the way they suggest, it will quickly get voted out at the earliest opportunity.
Still, I suppose I should thank them for reminding us of all the luxuries they want to take away from us. I was particularly intrigued by this bit:
Well, yes, that’s the whole point of affluence. You work and save hard in order improve your standards of living for you and your family. It is hardly surprising that wealthier people have a larger carbon footprint.
Dum and Dummer seem to believe that we will all accept enforced poverty, just because there is somebody poorer than us elsewhere in Europe. I would imagine that millions of us in Britain would fall into that 10% band, and many more close to it. But I doubt if any of us would regard ourselves as obscenely rich.
Yet they make no criticism of the top 1%, who won’t be affected by any of the researchers’ recommendations.
The fact that they can make such overtly political statements as these shows that this has nothing to do with the climate- it never did. If it was, they would be telling China, India and the rest of the world to make the same sacrifices.
No, what they really want, along with the rest of the climate establishment, is control over our lives.
Dum and Dummer are both being paid with taxpayer money for doing non-jobs:
May I suggest that they lead the fight against climate change by resigning their positions and setting us all a good example by living in a yurt and knitting yoghurt!
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
October 15, 2022