The UK’s Harmful and Dishonest Approach to Climate Policy

Rishi Sunak in front of Number10

Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng intuitively knew that the UK needs growth to release the shackles of destructive inflation and to help achieve the growth they needed to free the UK energy producers.

Unfortunately, the thinking was not supported by a deliverable plan. As a result of not preparing the ground better, or even at all, the bureaucratic apparatus was aligned against them. That’s not to say there would not have been headwinds, there would have. The EU and US are against any upity nation lowering taxes to attract new global business and increase the competitiveness of existing companies.

It wasn’t surprising that the IMF and EU came out against Kwarteng’s tax cuts. Their claims of concern for the UK’s economy were disingenuous at best. The Bank of England stepped to the side and allowed Truss to hit a financial brick wall by staying out of the guilt market. They could have stepped in as they did after they had destroyed the new PM. Instead, they choose to act once the knife had been deposited in the UK government’s back.

The new British PM Rishi Sunak just reversed his predecessor’s reinstatement of fracking for drilling and producing natural gas. Although much maligned, fracking has been the most effective tool for reducing carbon emissions. It has allowed the United States to exceed their promised decrease in emissions in record time and has ensured they continue to decline, a true ‘climate’ win.

The new government has returned to a slow or no growth strategy embracing the disastrous march towards a rigged net zero. Not only is our economy struggling to climb out of a deepening recession; it is having to do so with the milestone of extremist climate legislation tied around its waist.

In the ’20s and ’30s, the US government tried to end a depression by spending tens of billions of US dollars. It had little or no effect. Only the second world war broke the depression spiral when the government was forced to rely on the private sector for war material. The exponential growth in privately held businesses broke the multi-decade impasse that government spending only exacerbated and prolonged.

Japan is still suffering stagflation three decades after the collapse of its economy. The geographically small densely populated island state does not have the natural resources or ability to grow economically and may never emerge from the ravages of low growth and high inflation.

So why do we need to follow the same path as those who have no choice but to bend a knee to oil-producing nations, and what will we gain? care that we are on the path to being a carbon-neutral country in 2050?

The UK on the other hand does have proven energy reserves. Instead of seeing them as an asset which they are, we have decided to follow the lead of other nations, who have no choice and we have downed tools subjecting millions of Britains to fuel poverty. Driving a stake through the heart of a national asset.

Transferring our energy needs to despots and dictators is not a sound policy. Needless killing citizens on the alter of climate activism, is murder. The millions who freeze to death this winter across Europe and the US need to be set alongside the supposed numbers of potential deaths over decades claimed by climate zealots.

The government will bankrupt the country trying to achieve the unachievable net zero. Quietly offshore our carbon footprint while claiming it has disappeared bringing a new and sinister meaning to the phrase NIMBY (not in my backyard).

Do the countries now posturing to be the new Imperialist, China, Russia, India and the Middle East care about climate change? Or will they see the west’s mindless pursuit of it as a strategic opportunity? It would be wise to remember that Reagan ended the Cold War by bankrupting the USSR. He could do that because the US had a massive economy with access to cheap energy.

This time, the shoe is on the other foot. Russia can make Europe go dark. A smart weapon, unlike the nuclear option Putin sometimes refers to. You don’t destroy the infrastructure, just kill a few million people.

The war in Ukraine is mostly about controlling energy, from the massive Ukrainian gas field to the leverage Putin has over Western Europe due to Germany relinquishing national security for marginal climate accolades. It has brought Europe close to a full-scale conflict that will immediately erase people and any massively expensive ‘climate gains’ along with them. You only have to look at the pictures coming from the Ukraine battlefield to tell war is not ‘green’.

As the reality of the disastrous green party policies comes home to roost in Germany, they are quietly bringing nuclear back online, clear-cutting forests for firewood, and recommissioning coal-fired power generation. Unlike the UK government, Germany has reversed their suicidal climate trajectory.

Oceans will rise over hundreds of years if they rise at all. The world’s temperature will rise slowly over hundreds of years, and even now scientists can’t agree on how much or even if it will rise or fall. Humans can adapt as we have throughout our existence. On the other hand, nuclear war happens in a matter of seconds, is provably terminal and would take minutes to turn the world uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. Eclipsing even the direst climate predictions.

We continue to ignore the real dangers and try and solve those which are undefined and can be solved over a long period if they are real. Even if not addressed they will not destroy the world’s entire population. Modern warfare will.

The government needs to stop pointing at ill-defined multi-decade problems and address the real existential threats, world war, freezing, starving populations, and quality of life. We have for too long chased the shiny object, enriched the climate snake oil salesman and thrown our safety and security under the bus. The west can’t solve the climate issues if it is bankrupt. Climate change will be the least of our worries if there is a change in a world order controlled by China and Russia.