Dear Prime Minister:
What would convince you that your ‘net zero carbon’ strategy is a fairy tale?
Let’s go back to basics. Carbon dioxide (CO2) (not ‘carbon’) is not a pollutant. It’s a trace gas and essential for life. Only 5 percent of CO2 is man-made and largely through burning fossil fuels; the other 95 percent is natural from sources such as oceans or volcanoes. [bold, links added]
More than 450 million years ago (long before mankind arrived) it was 5,000 parts per million (PPM). It’s currently about 420 ppm with the anthropogenic share at 20 PPM, in other words minuscule!
There is no known harm from CO2. Consequently, there is no enemy to fight to attain ‘net zero’; no need for expensive offset schemes to mitigate its purportedly harmful effects; no need to cover the land in environmentally damaging and unsightly solar farms or wind turbines (your ‘white Satanic mills’).
Neither of these alternative energy sources has recyclable parts. Birds mistake solar farms for lakes and fry as they land. Offshore wind farms kill birds and the incessant hum is believed to disorient cetaceans.
Onshore, where the hum drives sane people to distraction, they kill birds, bats, and insects. Discounted energy bills will not compensate for this destruction.
Restricting CO2 increase to pursue <2°C temperature rise by 2050 has no evidential basis. Even its inventor (Germany’s Chief Scientific Adviser Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, climatologist and member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits that the aspirational constraint is a ‘political goal’.
The IPCC is the body ‘polishing’ the UN’s climate reports, ensuring they continue the drama of ‘climate emergency’ (or some such doomsday title).
Actually, temperature increases precede CO2 rises by 800 years and the residence time for CO2 is unknown – any time from four to 1,000 years.
The outcome of any economic pain you inflict now will not be visible for almost a millennium (when it will be too late to say ‘I told you so’).
Your baffling hyperbole that ‘we were the first to knit the deadly tea cozy of CO2 that is now driving climate change’ is unevidenced.
Anthropogenic atmospheric gases are not analogous to a ‘tea cozy’. Similarly, the belief that increased CO2 will be detrimental to Planet Earth is baseless when gardeners pump extra CO2 into greenhouses to encourage growth.
In fact, slight warming accompanying increased CO2 should deliver a positive impact on improving agricultural output. (This will be desirable given the inevitable failure of Ukraine’s 2022 crops.) Increased warming should also reduce winter heating costs (something you favor).
Governments want populations to reduce energy consumption to match the restricted supply. However, demand is increasing because of the expansion of innovative, energy-hungry technologies (including the electric vehicles of which you are so supportive).
This foretells a worsening supply squeeze that will increase energy prices (yes, be prepared).
In contrast, the much-derided fossil fuels currently blamed for increased CO2 have many environmental benefits.
These include saving whales from extinction (blubber no longer needed as candle fuel), improved hygiene (hot water!), and streets freed from dung-borne diseases resulting from equine transport.
We don’t want to return to the 18th century. Fossil fuels have delivered us to the life we have today and until we have sufficient substitutes, should continue to do so.
However, fossil-fuel energy companies are now apologists for their products. They are hobbled by governments in thrall to increasingly vocal lobbies that cannot distinguish between human-made and natural CO2.
Irrespective, finance houses pushing the concept of a purportedly ‘warming planet’ are using ‘green’ anti-CO2 criteria in their corporate lending risk and planning.
Their endgame is to avoid investment in fossil-fueled industries as their contribution to reducing CO2 emissions. Choking energy investment is detrimental to economic growth.
As commercial enterprises, they are usurping the role of democratically-elected governments and deciding suicidal energy policies at a distance (follow the money).
CO2 is not our enemy. With no enemy, we have no need to fight. The pursuit of distant ‘net zero’ resembles fraud on a massive, taxpayer-subsidized scale. So, given that it has no evidential basis, how can you justify your strategy?
Next time you meet Greta Thunberg, ask her two questions: ‘What percentage of CO2 is anthropogenic?’ and ‘How do we tame Mother Nature’s 95 percent?’ This should finish the fairy tale.
Sincerely,
Deborah Ancell
Read more at Conservative Woman
It all has to do with Agenda 21the NWO and Globalism the UN was not and was never made for Peace just a Global Government with them in control and Coffee Cup Annan
From the article “Germany’s Chief Scientific Adviser Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, climatologist and member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits that the aspirational (2 degrees) constraint is a ‘political goal’.” I have been closely following this issue for 20 years and have never encountered even a junk science study justifying a 2 degree limit let alone 1.5 degrees. It appears to have come out of mid air. Articles that I have read claim that the 2 degree limit was selected for the desired adverse impact on our economies.
I enjoy “baiting” alarmists with the following question – “Do you know the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere ?”.
They normally haven’t got a clue and mumble and obfuscate – so I up the ante “Alright, it must at least be significant if we can use it to control the climate ?”
At which point they normally throw in an answer of four or five percent. (Some idiots guess 40% – now that would kill us.)
“Too big !” says I. “Try a smaller guess…….”
They then go through an iterative (and increasingly incredulous) process of reductions and prompting until they get to the actual figure of 0.04%.
At this point some go “that can’t be right – where do you get your data !” and some just outright don’t believe it – but all look vaguely perplexed by this piece of information.
At which point I tell them – “Don’t believe me – just go and look it up – then come back and explain to me how on earth we are going to “control” the climate with this one tiny variable – and while you are at it check out the natural cycle and find that man is only contributing only 8% of total – so if you think 0.04% is small now try using 0.0032% to control the climate – and even then only if we completely abandon fossil fuel use in its entirety – immediately !”
A surprisingly large number come up with 4% – which leads me to conclude that whenever they hear or read 0.04% or 400ppm they presume they have either misheard or misunderstood and only the 4 remains lodged in their brains. Clearly 0.04% is too small to be significant and creates a cognitive dissonance between their belief and reality.
Stop being ignorant and proud of it – do some actual checking.
“Nothing is more frightening than ignorance in action.” – Goethe
A well written letter Deborah,
Boris is carbonphobic, and should be called out for he’s hatred of this remarkable life giving gas.
The U.K. don’t need this Imbellcile running their nation