The push for Net Zero continues unabated in the UK.

Last Friday, I wrote about Sir John Evelyn’s weather-oriented diaries of the 17th century, in which he foresaw the end of the world with every storm.

One of my readers, David Ellis, responded to that post with the following comment, which deserves reproducing in full (emphases mine):

Thanks for your skepticism! And that is meant as a compliment!

I remember ever since my childhood days that we were “ going to run out of oil”, “run out of water”, “over heat because of carbon pollution” and “all our water will have boiled or evaporate”, to name a few scare stories. And they were all supposed to happen in 20 years’ time. And none of them have happened.

Do you remember diesel being taxed increasingly because of the pollution caused by the particulate content of diesel emissions? And they cited the increase in asthma as the consequence of the pollution. First it was the small particulates which “justified” the tax, until it was found that petrol had the same particulates. So then it was large particulates clogging our lungs up, so up went the taxes again, with no benefit whatsoever.

The real reason for the tax rises was pressure from the oil companies. Diesel was a by-product of producing petrol, so the shift to diesel cars was hitting the oil companies’ profits. Also the better fuel economy meant less gallons being bought, which cost the Government the equivalent of 1p of income tax.

It also became clear the incidence of asthma per head of population was the same in the countryside as it was in inner cities, despite the disparity in vehicle use. The real reason was the increase in sealed double glazed windows and wall to wall carpets. The resultant reduction in draughts around people’s houses meant that there was an increase in dust-mite droppings being trapped in houses, and it is these droppings which were the cause of asthma.

So the whole diesel particulates was a scam. As is global warning. It was hotter during Roman times than it us now, and the planet is cooler now than it was just 10 years ago, not that the media are telling us that!

So despite being repeatedly told that increasing carbon content is the cause of all our woes, we find that carbon only makes up 0.43% of the atmosphere! And that humans only contribute 3% if that figure! We only cause 0.0129% of the carbon content of the atmosphere!

So what do you think the motive is for the global warming scam?

I wrote back:

Money and control …

The UK’s Energy Bill

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023, the Energy Bill came up for a short — four hour — debate.

More detail can be found in Hansard. A few things stood out for me.

The first is that fracking will be banned:

New clause 28—Prohibition on hydraulic fracturing—

“(1) Associated hydraulic fracturing is prohibited.

(2) “Associated hydraulic fracturing” has the meaning given by section 4B of the Petroleum Act 1998.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make consequential provision in connection with this section.”

This new clause would introduce a permanent ban on fracking.

The second is that new oil field developments will also be banned:

New clause 29—Prohibition of new oil and gas field developments and issuing of exploration and production licences—

“Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations prohibit—

(a) the approval of new oil and gas field developments, and

(b) the release of new oil and gas exploration and production licences.”

This new clause would prohibit the approval of new oil and gas field developments and the issuing of new oil and gas exploration and production licenses.

Shortly before 5:30 p.m., about halfway through the debate, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, said:

In my point of order earlier I said that this was a 328-page Bill. That was what it was when it came from the House of Lords; it is now a 427-page Bill, which we are expected to debate in detail in three hours, on a day when we had two relatively lightweight statements. That really seems to me not the proper way to have scrutiny in this House. It does not allow this House to do its proper job of looking at the detail of legislation—it is as if we had abdicated it entirely to their lordships.

I have supported my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) in a number of amendments, every single one of which has basically the same aim: to ameliorate the burden this Bill will place on all our constituents. Throughout the Bill, we are creating cost, regulation, penalties and obligations. New clause 42 is there to say that the lowest possible cost should be at the forefront of the mind of the Government in everything that they do, irrespective of how the energy is generated. If that means fossil fuels, let it be fossil fuels. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, we need to keep people with us, and we risk losing them if we put undue burdens on them.

What other burdens did we seek to take away? Well, the hydrogen levy, of course. I am all in favour of hydrogen; I think it could be the fuel of the future—I remember that when I was a child, coal was advertised as the fuel of the future. Hydrogen may have a better opportunity, but that cannot be done by levies and imposts, and I hope that what the Government have done will not be a power that they use to create a levy and an impost.

On entering people’s homes without a warrant, a warrant is not the protection that one would like it to be—we saw the scandal of warrants just being agreed by the courts willy-nilly to insist on the installation of prepayment meters—but at least a warrant is some protection. Let us protect our voters. Smart appliance regulations are the EU’s approach to regulating rather than the market approach. Surely we on the Conservative Benches believe in market forces determining how things should happen.

Our amendment 67 deals with a Henry VIII clause to try to stop legislation being changed by fiat. Most importantly, on amendment 66, can it possibly be right to criminalise people, and potentially put them in jail for a year, for muddling their energy efficiency certificate? No, it cannot, and we should not do it.

Energy Minister Andrew Bowie led the debate for the Government. He was remarkably upbeat, considering how draconian this legislation is.

On Thursday, September 7, David Craig wrote about the Energy Bill for the Daily Sceptic:

You probably know that a massive Energy Bill is being rushed through Parliament by our fake ‘Conservative’ Government in the first two days of our parliamentarians’ return from their generous summer break. The Bill is 446 pages long and written in dense, largely-incomprehensible-to-any-normal-person legalese. Moreover, many clauses in the Energy Bill make reference to other pieces of previous legislation. So, to fully understand the Bill, you would have to read at least a thousand pages of dense legalistic gobbledegook. Given that our MPs have just passed the Bill with a mere nine voting against it, one must assume that they have spent their summer holidays diligently reading through the Bill and other relevant legislation in order to fully understand what they were voting for …

As you’ll see, this legislative monster covers an awful lot of areas – energy production, regulation of the energy market, CO₂ transport and storage, carbon capture, hydrogen production, low-carbon heat schemes, hydrogen grid trials, heat networks, smart appliances, load control, energy performance of industrial and residential premises, offshore energy production and the civil nuclear sector. We must be considered fortunate in Britain to have MPs who have such a strong work ethic and such a deep understanding of all these disparate issues to be able to vote for the new Energy Bill knowing exactly what they are voting for.

Life is too short for any normal person to read and to try to understand this massive abomination of almost impenetrable legalise. But here are some choice titbits which I think I understand.

He goes into smart meters and what the Bill says about them:

… it seems that the conspiracy theorists were right yet again – a key purpose of ‘Smart Meters’ is not only to measure power usage but also to allow energy providers to control how much energy we are allowed to consume using “a load control signal”.

Moreover, authorities will be allowed to use “reasonable force” to enter any homes or premises to ensure we have the approved ‘Smart Meters’ installed …

It is not just landlords affected by home ownership legislation. Everyone is:

We can be fined up to £15,000 or face one year in prison for failing to meet any future energy performance levels any government imposes …

Under the totally misleading title of ‘Energy Savings Opportunity Schemes’, authorities can force any person or company to make energy savings using the threat of criminalisation for failure to comply …

David Craig arrives at similar conclusions to my reader David Ellis:

If there really was a ‘climate crisis’ caused by humans burning fossil fuels and threatening the existence of the human race as the BBC and others of its ilk repeatedly claim, then you might be able to argue that some of the measures in the Bill could be justified. But given that changes in atmospheric CO₂ levels have little to no influence on the Earth’s temperatures, that Britain only contributes less than 1% of world CO₂ output and that developing countries like India and China each increase their CO₂ output by more each year than Britain’s total CO₂ emissions, we are creating a totalitarian regime which will intrude on people’s lives, restrict people’s freedoms, wreck the British economy and immiserate our country to fix a problem which doesn’t even exist and, if it did, would not be solved by our action anyway.

Veteran columnist Richard Littlejohn wrote about the Bill for the Daily Mail:

Anyone selling or letting a property must obtain an energy performance certificate. Inspectors will be given the power to order ‘improvements’ and prevent the property being sold or let if they are not carried out to the letter.

Such improvements will include fitting heat pumps, loft insulation, double glazing and so-called ‘smart appliances’.

Compulsory installation of smart meters, fridges, washing machines, immersion heaters and so on, all connected to the internet, will allow the Government and the energy companies to monitor electricity consumption and switch off your supply if they think you’re using too much.

I’m not making this stuff up. It’s all there in Hansard, Parliament’s official record.

When the Energy Bill’s third reading came before the House this week, only a handful of MPs spoke out against it. Honourable mentions must go to Tory members, including Jacob Rees-Mogg, John Redwood, Craig Mackinlay and Richard Drax …

The rest of the Muppets sat on their hands, or retired to the subsidised bars and restaurants, as this sinister piece of legislation slithered its way through the session, virtually unopposed. Some of the more bonkers MPs even thought these draconian proposals didn’t go far enough …

[Labour’s] Ed Miliband [former Energy Secretary] moved an amendment which would have forced the National Grid to get rid of all fossil fuels by 2030.

Nurse!

Fortunately Mister Ed’s economic suicide prescription fell at the first hurdle. But Tuesday’s risible ‘debate’ only served to demonstrate just how comprehensively, and apparently irreversibly, our elected representatives have capitulated to the Net Zero nutcases.

When push came to shove, only 19 MPs voted against the Bill. So out of a grand total of 650, we must assume that 631 either couldn’t be bothered or genuinely believe turning homeowners into criminals in their insane crusade to cut the world’s carbon output by a piffling 1 per cent is a proper way to behave in a modern alleged democracy. Do they really think people should be banged up for failing to fit a heat pump? And is this the desperate state to which a so-called Conservative Party — which is supposed to stand for individual liberty and a property-owning democracy — has been reduced?

Answers on TikTok to No 10, since social media is about the only thing politicians seem to give a toss about these days.

Spineless Sunak performs an immediate reverse ferret every time he comes under pressure from his backbenches. His latest climbdown was over onshore windfarms, which he promised to ban during his leadership campaign.

Following a revolt by a bunch of virtue-signalling MPs, with an eye on their future career prospects after the Tories’ inevitable defenestration next year, the PM buckled.

Littlejohn points out that India will not reduce carbon emissions unless there is big money involved:

Modi made it clear in no uncertain terms that unless the West bribed ’emerging’ economies like his own to decarbonise, there was no question of India shutting down, let alone refraining from opening new, coal-fired power stations.

Call it $100 billion for cash.

All this at a time Sunak is trying to stitch up a trade deal with India. So he’s happy to do business with a major international polluter, but at the same time thinks it’s a good idea to send his own citizens to jail for failing to fit a heat pump, which won’t make the slightest difference to global emissions.

Meanwhile, in France, there’s snow

France’s first snowfall of the second half of 2023 took place on August 28 at the ski resort of Val Thorens in the Alps.

Powder reported that it was not a dusting but rather a decent snowfall, as can be seen from the photos posted:

… this wasn’t just your light, high-altitude dusting. Images shared by the resort of its base area show several inches of the white stuff …

At the time of writing this, much of the snow is still sticking to the ground, as shown by Val Thorens’ webcams …

Switzerland was similarly affected:

Another European mountain town, Zermatt, Switzerland, also awoke to August snow this morning.

Climate change? No, just unusual weather.

Should we worry?

No.

We should worry only about draconian legislation coming from a Conservative government, which will be made much worse if or when Labour get in in 2024.