Paul Homewood recently drew our attention to a Private Members’ Bill currently making its way through Parliament. As a quick look at Wikipedia tells us, however, the Bill (the Climate and Nature Bill) has been hanging around Parliament for a few years now in one form or another. It was originally introduced by the then sole Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, when it was called the Climate and Ecology Bill. This time it has been presented by a Liberal Democrat MP, Dr Roz Savage. She came third in the private members’ ballot, so the Bill will be allocated Parliamentary time. Its second reading is due to take place in the House of Commons on 24th January 2025.
If you undertake an internet search for “climate and nature crisis”, you will be overwhelmed by the volume of search results. Its seems to be a given that the “climate crisis” (sic) and a crisis in nature are inextricably interlinked. My own search produced in the following order, links to the websites of the following: ClientEarth; the UK government; the RSPB; The Wildlife Trusts; BMJ Mental Health; UN Environment Programme; the European Union; WWF; the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change; and many, many more. Even the election manifesto of the current UK government, before this year’s general election, claims the following:
The climate crisis has accelerated the nature crisis. Whilst Britain enjoys remarkable natural beauty, the Conservatives have left Britain one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Labour will deliver for nature, taking action to meet our Environment Act targets, and will work in partnership with civil society, communities and business to restore and protect our natural world.
I’m as keen as anyone on preserving nature, allowing itself to regenerate where possible, and to ensure that our beautiful wild places are left as undisturbed as possible. My uneasiness with the simplistic narrative that the “climate crisis” (sic) and the nature crisis are inextricably linked, is that the proponents of that view tend to believe that the industrial scale deployment of “renewable” energy in our wild places will solve both “crises”. Sadly, the reality is that the climate will remain completely unaffected by humanity’s efforts in this regard, but the natural world will be massively damaged by those very efforts. That’s why one of my early contributions here at Cliscep was Saving the Planet by Trashing it. I there cited a Guardian article from 15th March 2021 titled “The race to zero: can America reach net-zero emissions by 2050?” and complained that the picture it set out was to my mind a Dantean vision of hell. To achieve President Biden’s “green” targets, we were told, would involve the need for:
…around 590,000 sq km (or 227,800 sq miles) of America to be blanketed in turbines and panels, around a tenth of all the land in the contiguous US. If you took a stroll along an Atlantic-facing beach there would be a good chance you’d see renewable energy in all directions, with an expanse of ocean the size of Belgium dotted with towering offshore wind turbines.
The attempts to mitigate the “climate crisis” will cause massive environmental damage, and yet the advocates of these “solutions” don’t seem to see it – or if they do, they are unconcerned. And now the UK faces the prospect of a new piece of oxymoronic legislation that, although running to just nine clauses, will – if enacted – massively build on the problems already associated with the Climate Change Act. It’s supposedly a Bill to restore nature while dealing with the “climate crisis”, but it’s a Bill that would destroy what’s left of the UK’s environment while claiming to be its defender. It’s worse than that, though. Let’s take a look.
Duty of the Secretary of State – climate and nature targets
Clause 1 is mandatory – the Secretary of State must achieve the two objectives set out in clause 1(2). The first objective is described as the “climate target”. Under it, the UK must:
reduce its overall contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions to net zero at a rate consistent with— (i) limiting the global mean temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and (ii) fulfilling its obligations and commitments under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, taking into account the United Kingdom’s and other countries’ common but differentiated responsibilities, and respective capabilities, considering national circumstances.
This rather ignores the fact that the UK has no binding “obligations and commitments under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement”, but it would impose a legal obligation on the UK government to abide by a non-binding international agreement which other countries will feel free to (and no doubt will) ignore.
The second objective is the “nature target”. To achieve this, the Secretary of State must achieve a series of objectives that are directly threatened by his current plans (which would presumably be accelerated and increased if this Bill is enacted) to “decarbonise” the national grid. Specifically, the UK is to:
halt and reverse its overall contribution to the degradation and loss of nature in the United Kingdom and overseas [my emphasis] by— (i) increasing the health, abundance, diversity and resilience of species, populations, habitats and ecosystems so that by 2030, and measured against a baseline of 2020, nature is visibly and measurably on the path of recovery; (ii) fulfilling its obligations under the UNCBD and its protocols and the commitments set out in the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework; and (iii) following the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
Clause 8 contains a number of definitions, for the purposes of the Bill. Thus:
First definition:
UNCBD and its protocols” means the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which entered into force on 29 December 1993, and all subsequent agreements and protocols arising from it.
The UN website makes it clear that the Convention is non-binding:
Its overall objective is to encourage actions, which will lead to a sustainable future.
Second definition:
“the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature” means the agreement of the United Nations Summit on Biodiversity of 28 September 2020.
A summary of this can be found here. As usual, while containing much that is desirable and very easy to support, it’s utterly non-binding, and certainly isn’t a “pledge” to do anything. It contains the usual cop-outs, such as:
While many countries reiterated their willingness to continue to protect, conserve and restore their natural resources, some said they would do so while considering the need to boost their economies and provide for the livelihoods of their people. Several mentioned difficulties in fully implementing their biodiversity strategies due to conflict and lack of resources.
The Bill seeks to impose a legal duty on all UK governments to implement an international “pledge” that won’t be binding on other governments and will, in all probability, be widely ignored.
Third definition:
“the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” means the framework adopted by the decision of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Montreal on 19 December 2022.
Its text can be found here. It is a lengthy and detailed document, which contains much of which I approve. However, as is usual with UN COPs, it’s full of aspiration and no binding obligations. While the rest of the world will be free to ignore it (as, by and large, it currently ignores the injunctions preached at the end of each climate COP), this legislation seeks to make it binding on the UK government.
Other definitions:
“nature” includes— (a) the abundance, diversity and distribution of animal, plant, fungal and microbial life, (b) the extent and condition of habitats, and (c) the health and integrity of ecosystems;
“ecosystems” includes natural and managed ecosystems and the air, soils, water and abundance and diversity of organisms of which they are composed.
Duty of the Secretary of State: climate and nature strategy
Clause 2(1) imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a strategy for achieving the clause 1 objectives, and to do so within 12 months of the Bill becoming law. By clause 2(2), the strategy must include annual interim targets consistent with the achievement of the objectives, and the Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to achieve the interim targets. There is clearly to be no back-sliding of the sort that has seen interim targets ditched in Scotland along the road towards its unachievable 2045 net zero nirvana.
Clause 2(3) is where it starts to get rather scary. It sets out eight very specific measures that must be included in the strategy so as to achieve the objectives. For example, the UK’s total emissions of CO2 must be limited to no more than its proportionate share of the remaining global carbon budget. As if that’s not enough, a look at the definitions in clause 8 enables one to see just how extraordinarily prescriptive this draft legislation is:
“the United Kingdom’s total emissions of carbon dioxide” means— (a) all territorial emissions of carbon dioxide from the United Kingdom, and (b) all emissions of carbon dioxide generated by the United Kingdom’s share of international aviation and shipping, emitted between 2020 and 2050.
Thus there is to be no hiding from the country’s total emissions by limiting them to land-based emissions as is currently the case.
Also:
“remaining global carbon budget” means 400 billion tonnes of carbon 40 dioxide.
Very precise. And, in case you were wondering:
“proportionate share of the remaining global carbon budget” means the share of the remaining global carbon budget in proportion to the United Kingdom’s share of the global population, averaged over the period 2020 to 2050, using United Kingdom forecast population data from the Office for National Statistics and global forecast population data from Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 1;
“greenhouse gas” has the same meaning as in section 92 of the Climate Change Act 2008
The next measure that must be achieved is the reduction of CO2 emissions in respect of imports to the UK, at the same rate is achieved for reductions of emissions under the first measure. Again, there is to be no hiding or ducking the issue:
“emissions of carbon dioxide in respect of imports to the United Kingdom” means emissions of carbon dioxide generated outside the United Kingdom by the production of goods that are imported to the United Kingdom, and by the provision of services overseas that are received in the United Kingdom.
Exporting our jobs and manufacturing capacity, and emissions along with them, will no longer be an option. How we repatriate the jobs and manufacturing capacity while reducing our emissions under the first measure, however, is quite beyond me. Probably we will rapidly return to the Stone Age instead.
The third measure is the reduction of the UK’s emissions of greenhouses gases other than CO2 at rates consistent with a proportionate UK contribution to limiting “global heating” to 1.5C. Unless I missed it, global heating isn’t defined, but I suppose it’s to be read consistently with clause 1(2)(a)(i) above.
The fourth measure is to ensure the end of the exploration, extraction, export and import of fossil fuels by the United Kingdom as rapidly as possible.
The fifth measure is to ensure that steps taken under the strategy to mitigate emissions in the UK and overseas minimise damage to ecosystems, food and water availability, and human health, as far as possible. I find that turn of phrase to be very interesting. It seems to be implicit within it that the industrialisation of the UK’s wild places by the continuing spread of renewable energy and associated infrastructure is damaging to “ecosystems, food and water availability, and human health” but that such damage, while ideally to be minimised, is ultimately a price that will just have to be paid. Clearly the first objective (the climate target) overrides the second (the nature target).
The sixth measure is to restore and expand natural ecosystems and enhance the management of cultivated ecosystems, in the UK and overseas, to protect and enhance biodiversity, ecological processes, and ecosystem service provision.
The seventh measure is to ensure that all activities in the UK which affect the health, abundance, diversity and resilience of species, populations and ecosystems prioritise avoidance of the loss of nature, through adherence to the Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy. Needless to say, this is also defined in clause 8, thus:
the hierarchy adopted by resolution 58 of the World Conservation Congress at the 35 International Union for Conservation of Nature from 1 to 10 September 2016.
The final measure is to take every possible step to avoid, where avoidance is not possible, limit, and where limiting is not possible, restore, or otherwise offset, the adverse impacts in the United Kingdom and overseas [my emphasis] on ecosystems and human health of— (i) United Kingdom-generated production and consumption of goods and services, and (ii) all related trade, transport and financing including impacts from the extraction of raw materials, deforestation, land and water degradation, pollution and waste production.
Very desirable and easy to insist upon. Very difficult to achieve and no doubt extraordinarily expensive.
As if all that’s not enough, the priority to be given to the reduction of GHG emissions is made clear by clause 2(4). It provides that those reductions, as required by the first three measures, are to be achieved “as far and as rapidly as possible.”
In the world of motherhood and apple pie, it seems anything is possible. Clause 2(5) goes on to add yet more requirements to the strategy. It must (that mandatory language again):
(a) in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be projected to have an overall positive impact on— (i) local communities with a high deprivation rating according to Government deprivation indices; (ii) young people; and (iii) people with protected characteristics under section 4 of the Equality Act 2010; (b) set out how the requirements under paragraph (a) have been met; and (c) include financial support and retraining for people whose livelihoods and jobs will be affected by the proposed measures—including those measures that require transitioning out of industries characterised by high emissions and high impacts on ecosystems.
Good luck with all of that. At this point I think it’s fair to say that anyone appointed to be the relevant Secretary of State, should this Bill become law, will definitely have been handed a poisoned chalice.
Public Involvement
Now we arrive at clause 3. Alert readers, who may recall Ode to Joy, which I wrote almost ten months ago, will realise that I am not at all impressed by what follows. That is because clause 3 goes down the road of introducing a body to be called a Climate and Nature Assembly (“the Assembly”). I am totally opposed to the idea of citizens’ assemblies, for the simple reason that busy people with meaningful lives won’t serve on them. Instead, they will be populated by the retired, the unemployed, and by activists. They also require someone to organise them and steer their deliberations. Inevitably those people will also be activists, who see citizens’ assemblies as a means by which their views can be given spurious democratic legitimacy. There is nothing democratic about these processes. Rather, they are the antithesis of democracy.
Having got that off my chest, what does clause 3 stipulate? It says (by subclause (1)) that the Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of the Bill into law, procure, by open tender, an expert independent body to establish the Assembly, comprising a representative sample of the UK population. The Assembly must then be established no later than three months therafter. And as I knew would be the case, the Assembly must consider relevant expert advice and publish its recommendations for measures to be included in the strategy. “Relevant expert advice”, needless to say, isn’t defined – all the more scope for activists to take over the process.
At this point, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and the Climate Change Committee (CCC) are brought in to play. Working together, they must consider the Assembly’s recommendations and “relevant expert advice” and must then publish a joint proposal for measures to be included in the strategy, including all recommendations by the Assembly that have the support of 66% or more of its members unless, in the opinion of either the CCC or the JNCC, there are exceptional and compelling reasons, which must be stated, not to implement those recommendations.
Then the Secretary of State must include in the strategy all recommendations by the Assembly that have the support of 66% or more of its members, where those recommendations are also jointly proposed by the CCC and the JNCC (but not if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, there are exceptional and compelling reasons, which must be stated in the strategy, not to implement those recommendations.
Duties of the Committee on Climate Change and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee
The CCC and the JNCC must— (a) evaluate, monitor and report annually on the implementation of the strategy and on the achievement of the interim targets; (b) undertake the duties referred to above (i.e. with regard to the Assembly) and also by clause 6 (Acceptance and implementation of the strategy and any revisions) – see below. Furthermore, The CCC must recommend annual emissions budgets for each greenhouse gas for the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with a view to the requirements of the climate and nature strategies being met.
Approval by devolved legislatures
Clause 5 is of relevance to the devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, since the Bill is designed to apply to the whole of the UK. Happily the details here aren’t relevant to a general critique of this absurd piece of draft legislation, so I shall say no more about them.
Acceptance and implementation of the strategy and any revisions
Clause 6 provides that the Secretary of State must lay the strategy before the House of Commons and a Minister of the Crown must move a motion “That this House approves the Climate and Nature Strategy, laid before this House on [date]”. The Secretary of State must then implement the strategy, including any amendments made to it by the House of Commons and any revisions made pursuant to subclause (6), which provides:
If, at any time, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the CCC or the JNCC based on up-to-date scientific evidence, or of the House of Commons expressed by resolution, the measures in the strategy or the interim targets are unlikely to achieve the objectives, the Secretary of State must revise the strategy, or make a statement to the House of Commons explaining why a revision is not necessary.
Finally, the Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on the implementation of the strategy or any revisions to it, and on progress towards achieving the objectives and interim targets.
Conclusion
I think its fair to say that this is one of the most well-meaning, yet absurd, pieces of draft legislation I have ever seen. It seeks to impose mutually contradictory obligations on the Secretary of State (to add to his mutually contradictory job title – energy security and net zero). It seeks to impose a legal liability to implement foreign treaties that aren’t binding on the rest of the world, and to require the UK to take on its fair share of greenhouse gas reduction whether or not the rest of the world follows suit (needless to say, it won’t). There is no provision for the obligations to be reviewed should it become apparent that they have become futile and counter-productive or should scientific opinion alter. It is an attempt to write in tablets of stone the current extremist version of the climate change religion. Given the Herculean, contradictory and indeed unachievable tasks it seeks to impose as a duty, it represents, in my opinion, peak stupidity.
Postscript
A significant number of MPs (more than 180 to date) are publicly supporting this nonsense. If you want to see if yours is among them, you can find out here.
Climate Scepticism 
Climate Mania makes Tulip Mania look downright sane.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Coincidentally, in response to a recent letter published by my local rag [1], I wrote the following:
I’ve previously said that one doesn’t serve one’s rural electorate by abstaining in a vote on legislation that has the potential to profoundly affect the viability of British agriculture. Why, then, did Dr Chowns do so?
She claims she doesn’t “… agree fully with either the Conservative or the Labour position on this issue”. To my mind, though, such is an unsatisfactory explanation insofar as an abstention tacitly endorses the latter’s ill-conceived policy. It also leads me wonder whether her support for the Climate and Nature (CAN) Bill – a bill so crackpot it makes Nut-Zero seem like a walk in the park – has played a role in her thinking.
Not being a Herefordshire North constituent, I didn’t trouble myself to write much about Dr Chowns’ electioneering. On reflection, though, that appears to have been a mistake.
In studiously avoiding any mention of Green national policy (when penning her various HT “Talking Point” opinion pieces and letters), it appeared to me her campaign could have be condensed into to three simple statements: I’m local, I’m wonderful, I’m not Bill Wiggin. Thus, beguiled by personality, political expediency and a general dislike of the incumbent, I believe the Herefordshire North electorate have been sold a disingenuous pup.
George Vere recently described the Greens as crypto-communists. Based on Dr Chowns’ hypocrisy in promoting the thoroughly undemocratic concept of assemblies (such as the Council’s climate brain washing exercise) while whinging about the lack of parliamentary proportional representation, and her support for a bill that will inevitably bring wholesale changes to the way in which UK agriculture is conducted and the freedoms we presently take for granted, I believe he has a point.
https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/24809898.mp-chose-not-vote-labour-inheritance-tax-plans/
Note: Those who trouble themselves to follow the link will see that the letter has supposedly garnered ten replies, though only one is actually reproduced. The other nine are my attempts at submitting my response but, for whatever reason, it simply will not display. It seems I’ve discovered yet another idiosyncrasy of Newsquest comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” … the Herculean, contradictory and indeed unachievable tasks it seeks to impose as a duty …” [part quote from the finishing paragraph of the article]
This is insane, of course. Being legislatively forced to carry out contradictory measures simultaneously is simply Through the Looking Glass with Alice.
I’m sure there are many examples of legislative lunacy like this worldwide. I have laboured under one such large canvas (as have many other people) in Aus. The Mining Act here was initially dumped holus bolus as the UK version, word for word, then about 850 end pages of Aus codicils were added to it, successfully introducing many contradictory but enforceable regulations. The final comment from Authority on this wunderbar effort: “Notwithstanding that there may be contradictory requirements within this Act, the duly appointed mining official (ie. the Mine Manager) is required to implement all regulations in full”.
Yep …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Mark for going to what must have been considerable trouble to expose to us the absurdity and childishness of this ludicrous mishmash of conflicting proposals. It’s remarkable that nearly 200 of our legislators are supporting such manifest nonsense. The intellectual quality of these people is even worse than I might have imagined.
I would have to read your analysis again and follow up some of your links to get a good grasp of all this. I may have misunderstood it, but one item in particular struck me. We wouldn’t (natch) be allowed to exploit our own fossil fuel resources. But nor would we be allowed to acquire them from elsewhere. Therefore we might as well decommission our gas burning power plants as we’d have no fuel for them. As nuclear plants (if allowed – unclear) would not be available for a many years, that would make us wholly dependent on renewables – with all their problems such as intermittency and lack of a stable, reliable and comprehensive grid. But what’s proposed would seem to be even worse than that as renewables are essentially all made overseas – in the process emitting vast amounts of CO2 and doing dreadful harm to the natural environment – before being brought here in oil burning ships. All of which would essentially be forbidden. Therefore we’d have no source of energy – clean or otherwise. Is that what the sponsors of this proposed legislation really want?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you, Robin.
I believe the implications of this draft Bill are indeed as you suggest. It’s why I made reference to returning to the Stone Age
The fact that more than 180 MPs support it is terrifying. Either they just like the sound of it and haven’t bothered reading it properly and understanding the implications; or they do understand the implications, and are happy with that.
I’m not sure which alternative reality scares me more.
LikeLike
Let us add a clause that imposes on the SoS a duty to determine, by experiment, the result of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.
LikeLike
Just to add to Robin’s points – Our steel sector aims to fully switch to electric furnace to reach Net Zero targets – UK Steel & UK ‘green steel’: Switch to electric furnaces delayed until 2032 – Energy Live News
So this bill will mean the steel we have to import because we went “to electric arc furnaces” to save the planet will now be counted as part of our Carbon debt.
So why shut down/cripple our steel industry & lose all those hard workers for no reason.
Madness.
LikeLike
@ dfhunter
Though it changed name and owners several times, I spent over forty years working for the Nickel Alloys manufacturing business based in Hereford.
Whether done by air induction, vacuum induction, electro-slag refining or vacuum arc refining, the melting and remelting/refining has, to my knowledge, always been done electrically. Gas, however, is fundamental to processes further down the line where the heating and reheating of the various alloys and forms is necessary for forging, extruding and annealing.
How the business continues to function is beyond me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No matter what topic one chooses when talking about net zero, there always seems to be a perfect Lewis Carroll quote available:
LikeLiked by 2 people
davidyoung100 – thanks for your knowledgeable comment/input.
From the link I gave above – “Future steel’s needs – an electric arc furnace (EAF) uses roughly 0.5MWh of electricity per tonne of steel. Not only will the major investments in EAF, announced in the autumn, cut the total UK greenhouse gas emissions by a staggering 2.3%, they will also secure steelmaking in the UK after years of reduced production. This is why we need affordable electricity now and in the future.”
I had read/heard that UK EAF steel would not be the best compared to the old UK steel method.
Not sure what to believe, but from your comment it seems it’s the downstream processing that will cause the problem?
Which begs the question, will UK EAF steel need to be shipped abroad for final processing?
Forgive me if I have misunderstood your comment & Happy New Year to you.
LikeLike
@ dfhunter
I wouldn’t presume to fully understand the processes necessary to produce the various forms of steel manufacturing requires, but those Nickel Alloys prone to oxidisation require a reducing atmosphere [1] when being reheated for, say, extrusion or when being annealed*.
If I’m reading things correctly, it seems to me that, whether home or abroad, any form of industrial activity will be verboten.
* ‘Bright’ annealing was why, some years ago, the company invested in a hydrogen atmosphere continuous tube annealing furnace – until it went bang in quite spectacular fashion. Fortunately, no one was seriously hurt, though a few nerves were shattered. It’s also the reason why I’ll have no truck with hydrogen being pumped into my house.
Happy New Year!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_atmosphere
LikeLiked by 1 person
@david – thanks for the reply & link at the end (Found the “Origin of life” bit interesting as well)
LikeLike
@david again – funny how comments lead to other comments from this post – Happy New Year’s 2025 – Open Thread. | Musings from the Chiefio
Were Chiefio gives this interesting link – China Unveils New Iron-Making Technology: A 3,600-Fold Speed Boost – Eurasia Business News
Any thoughts?
LikeLike
@ dfhunter
It seems some of the article’s blurb is lifted from the abstract of the “Flash Ironmaking” chapter of this book [1] – which I won’t be buying anytime soon. A search on flash ironmaking, however, has unearth this US Department of Energy article from 2019 [2] which claims:
“The flash ironmaking process would reduce energy consumption up to 15% over competitive processes by eliminating pelletizing, briquetting, or sintering.
“Greenhouse gas emissions could be significantly reduced by using natural gas or hydrogen as the reducing agent instead of coke. Preliminary estimates show that the use of natural gas would emit 39% less carbon dioxide than with a blast furnace-based process.”
Bad news for the Australian coal industry, perhaps, but I doubt it will make much of a difference to those politicians who see deindustrialisation as a primary objective.
Note:
Amusingly, the process appears to be something of an opposite of the process involved in producing super-tough mechanically alloyed Nickel Alloys [3]
[1] https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-98056-6
[2] https://www.energy.gov/eere/amo/articles/novel-flash-ironmaking-process
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_alloying
LikeLiked by 1 person
This chart illustrates the reality of what’s happening in the world:
LikeLiked by 3 people
“The climate scaremongers: Net Zero? You ain’t seen nothing yet”
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-climate-scaremongers-net-zero-you-aint-seen-nothing-yet/
A PRIVATE Members’ Bill is currently wending its way through Parliament. Called the Climate and Nature Bill (CAN), it threatens to wreck the UK economy, damage lives and undermine democracy.
And that’s just for starters! It makes Theresa May’s Net Zero legislation look like a walk in the park.
Private Members’ Bills rarely turn into law, but worryingly this one already has the public support of 192 MPs – you can check the list here. And as we know, Theresa May’s Net Zero legislation passed with barely a murmur, despite having no democratic mandate.
Originally the brainchild of the then Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, the Bill is due for its Second Reading on January 24. It is based on the premise that the current legislation mandating Net Zero by 2050 is inadequate. It calls for UK emissions to be rapidly cut ‘in line with the 1.5C target’. In effect, this means cutting emissions by about 90 per cent in the next ten years....
...Nobody voted for this lunacy, yet 192 MPs plan to vote for the Bill, and no doubt many more will join them. Even if this Bill fails, the policies it contains will surely find their way into public policy sooner or later.
Net Zero is already doing great harm, but if this Bill becomes law, the country will be unrecognisable in ten years’ time. There will be energy and food shortages, industry will be decimated, private transport and foreign holidays a thing of the past. What we take for granted today will be unaffordable for most.
And there will be nothing we can do about it..…
LikeLiked by 2 people
David Turver has added his voice to the increasing critique of the Climate and Nature Bill:
“Climate and Nature Bill is Our Year Zero
The proposed Climate and Nature Bill will wreak havoc on society and people will die.”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/climate-and-nature-bill-is-our-year-zero
LikeLike
To illustrate the type of hair-brained thinking we are up against, you will find this on the Zero Hour (Year Zero) website which is promoting CAN. Under the Pythonesque subtitle “Following the science”, the authors write:
“In order to give us the strongest chance of keeping global heating within liveable limits, the UK needs to cut its greenhouse gas emissions rapidly. This will require reducing energy usage, changing our consumption habits, and other behavioural changes.”
So, the UK only needs to do this! Implying that either we can actually go it alone to save the planet and prevent the world from passing 1.5C, or the rest of the world will just follow our lead automatically, thus preventing the planet from breaching 1.5C. Both assumptions are clearly absurd. The more likely explanation IMO is that they don’t believe any of that nonsense, they’re just out to destroy the UK and its population. Either way, facts don’t matter, logic doesn’t matter; it’s 100% pure virtue-signalling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
More evidence , should it be needed, of the futility of UK virtue-signalling while committing economic suicide:
“Planet-warming gas levels rose more than ever in 2024”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c30dn5dn53jo
Levels of the most significant planet-warming gas in our atmosphere rose more quickly than ever previously recorded last year, scientists say, leaving a key global climate target hanging by a thread.
Concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) are now more than 50% higher than before humans started burning large amounts of fossil fuels.
Last year, fossil fuel emissions were at record highs, while the natural world struggled to absorb as much CO2 due to factors including wildfires and drought, so more accumulated in the atmosphere.
The rapid increase in CO2 is “incompatible” with the international pledge to try to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, the Met Office says.
This was the ambitious goal agreed by nearly 200 countries at a landmark UN meeting in Paris in 2015, with the hope of avoiding some of the worst impacts of climate change.…
LikeLiked by 3 people
Mark,
The usual mixture of lies, misdirection and omission from the BBC.
This statement is utter nonsense. Wildfires and drought have no real impact on the ability of the oceans and vegetated land surfaces to absorb CO2. Wildfires may have slightly added to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere – as they do every year.
The fact is the record annual increase in CO2 as measured in Hawaii coincides with a record warm year and it is almost certain that outgassing from warmer oceans is the principal cause of the recorded increase in atmospheric CO2. It is inconceivable that the record increase in CO2 drove the record warming. It did not. We know that. The proximate cause was a sharp decline in global low cloud cover. It was not a sudden record increase in global greenhouse gas emissions, because GHG emissions have plateaued:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-will-reach-new-high-in-2024-despite-slower-growth/
It’s relentless. Am I going to have to make another complaint to these serial misinformers?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Jaime: while you’re doing so (complaining to the BBC) you might invite them to reconsider this assertion:
The Paris Agreement did not include a ‘pledge’ to try to limit global warming, nor was an ambitious goal ‘agreed’. The key provision (Article 2.1 (a)) merely states that the ‘Agreement … aims...’ and an aim is an aspiration not a pledge. Moreover Article 2.2 qualifies 2.1 by referring for example to ‘the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities‘ that effectively lets developing countries (the source of 60% of global emissions) off such hook as may exist. And in any case, Article 4.4 specifically exempts developing countries from any obligation to reduce their emissions – presumably necessary to ‘limit warming’.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Indeed Robin; what the Met Office actually said is that the 2024 increase is incompatible with IPCC 1.5C global warming modelling pathways:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2025/rise-in-carbon-dioxide-off-track-for-limiting-global-warming-to-1.5c
The droughts (hot dry conditions) reducing carbon sinks were linked mainly to El Nino plus other factors which merely included climate change; the resulting wildfires added to the annual CO2 emissions – they didn’t reduce carbon sinks!
So yes, the annual increase at Mauna Loa is incompatible with IPCC 1.5C because it needs to be just 1.8ppm. If the BBC was honest though, it would state this specifically and state that CO2 emissions have been plateauing largely due to the efforts of western economies, whilst the Indians, Chinese, Saudis, Russians etc. are continuing to increase their emissions. Why the hell should we continue to drive ourselves into penury in a vain attempt to avoid the fabled 1.5C limit when the rest of the world is carrying on regardless?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Why indeed Jaime? See the chart I posted on this thread on 10 January.
LikeLike
Mark – partial quote from that BBC article –
“Records of the Earth’s climate in the distant past from ice cores and marine sediments show that CO2 levels are currently at their highest in at least two million years, according to the UN.”
No link given. Puts that Yamal tree to shame – YAD06 – the Most Influential Tree in the World « Climate Audit
LikeLike
dfhunter,
The graph of the last 800,000 years, which accompanied the article, looks completely implausible. Apart from the massive uptick at the end, it shows CO2 levels on several occasions being so low as to have come close to wiping out life on earth. I don’t buy it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – had a quick dig for that graph dated 2015, but instead found this 29 December 2015 paper interesting –
Late Holocene climate: Natural or anthropogenic? – Ruddiman – 2016 – Reviews of Geophysics – Wiley Online Library
“4.4 Conclusions
The late Holocene stands apart from equivalent intervals in other interglaciations of the last 800,000 years by registering greenhouse gas increases instead of decreases and in showing regional temperature stability in most regions instead of a shift toward glacial conditions (section 2). These anomalous responses implicate anthropogenic interference in the climate system. Independent ground truth estimates of CH4 and CO2 emissions sufficient to account for substantial parts of these inferred anomalies come from syntheses of archaeological and paleoecological data and from land use modeling (section 3). After more than a decade of debate over whether late Holocene climate was natural or anthropogenic, the convergence of evidence from these several branches of scientific inquiry points to a major anthropogenic influence.”
May have been covered/debunked before, but the statement “regional temperature stability in most regions instead of a shift toward glacial conditions” rings a bell.
LikeLike