Article by Rob Lyons.
Excerpt:
As with all disasters, lessons must be learned and changes made so that human suffering can be reduced in the future. Furthermore, even if there is an element of truth to the claim that human-created climate change made the floods worse – and that’s a big ‘if’, according to the IPCC – we still have to learn to cope with the problems that the weather throws at us. With ingenuity and investment, we are more than capable of doing so.
Interview (podcast) on spiked-online.com with Jon Moynihan. Interviewer is Brendan O’Neill.
Introduction of the written excerpts:
Britain, the nation that birthed the Industrial Revolution, is now a world leader in deindustrialisation. The power stations, oil refineries and steelworks that helped make the UK wealthy are now closing down and moving abroad. High energy prices are crippling industry and hurting households. Yet politicians are doubling down on precisely the policies that have brought us here. Reducing carbon emissions, they say, must be the nation’s priority. Apparently, we need to embrace a Net Zero future, no matter what it costs our economy.
Article by James Heartfield.
Excerpts:
Yesterday’s phase-two report from the inquiry, led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, rightly highlights Rydon and Harley Facade’s evasion of basic safety oversight, and the complicity of both Kensington and Chelsea council and the UK government’s housing ministry. What it does not do is ask the obvious question – why was the cladding installed in the first place?
Grenfell Tower was part of this trend. In 2012, engineer Max Fordham wrote a report on renovating Grenfell for the Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council with sustainability in mind. His aim was ‘to identify how, as part of the Grenfell Tower refurbishment scheme, the current energy and environmental-comfort problems can be addressed, and how the chosen solutions sit within the London Plan’s aim to bring existing housing stock up to the mayor’s standards on sustainable design and construction’. ‘The poor insulation levels and air tightness of both the walls and the windows at Grenfell Tower result in excessive heat loss during the winter months’, Fordham explained, and ‘the London Plan July 2011 aims to conserve energy’. Fordham argued that the council should have a ‘hierarchy’ of goals for the renovation. At the top of that list, it should: ‘Be lean: use less energy, in particular by adopting sustainable design and construction measures.’
After the overcladding was completed, the council boasted that it had clad ‘a high-rise block in the north of the borough’ – namely, Grenfell Tower – as part of a ‘greener housing’ strategy to ‘mitigate’ the causes of climate change. It admitted that because of the borough’s ‘limited capacity for new housing, we acknowledge the importance of seeking reasonable alterations to the existing building stock to mitigate the causes… of climate change’.
Since the Grenfell Tower fire, no new cladding has been put on to tower blocks to reduce climate change. Presumably, those CO2 targets were never quite as important as they seemed. Indeed, millions of pounds have since been spent removing dangerous cladding from these blocks. Billions more has been earmarked to complete the de-cladding of more than 500 buildings that are still considered dangerous.
There is no doubt that 72 lives were lost mainly because unscrupulous companies and legislators cut corners to slap cheap and dangerous materials on the sides of large working-class estates. But as wicked as the cost-cutting surely is, we cannot ignore why it was felt at the time that this cladding was necessary. This was a disaster fuelled by climate targets.
Apparently not, writes Andrew Montford here.
There’s some questions, here and there, about the veracity. See short video here.
Article here.
Article in Breitbart.com
Are you predator or prey?, asks Elizabeth Nickson.
Excerpts:
Ever asked yourself why 20 million have poured through the Southern border in the last three and a half years?
[. . .]
Mostly they are coming because Black Rock, the UN, the WEF are grabbing their lands, the more fertile the better, driving them from those lands and sticking them into tenement cities where they have to scratch like chickens for a living. Agenda 2030 is ravening under the radar in the US and Canada, where “civil society” in the pay of the government and environmental NGOs funded by oligarchs, is taking as much land and as many resources as possible out of the productive economy and shoving it into the land banks of BlackRock.
In the south, it’s not surreptitious. It is state policy to destroy their lives, to take their ancestral lands, whether it’s 40 acres or a half acre and leave them begging by the side of the road.
[. . .]
At the same time, in our vast swaths of upland forests, the UN organization Transitions is slowly accreting that land. For who? We don’t really know. Transitions is everywhere, in the US, in Canada, in every country in Europe. It is where you live. It is one of the many prongs of Agenda 2030. Everywhere, it invades local governments and acts to suppress economic activity.
Transitions also trades carbon credits. For who? Who do you think?
Therefore Transitions, which has a rainbow-colored smiley PR face, is in that business. Buying land to transfer it to international organizations and mega-rich families so they can make money on our forests. But not us. We can’t. We can’t even thin them to prevent catastrophic forest fire.
Those contracts must be interesting, not that anyone can see them. The first thing they do is act as whacking big first-time tax deductions. The second thing they do is act as an annual tax deduction because those trees are eating CO2. Very clever. International interests buy our land (and yours) and use it to not pay taxes. While banking some of the most valuable assets on the planet.
Multiply this 100,000 times, and you will see just a very tiny piece of the vast tapestry, the puzzle, of the Climate Change/Agenda 2030 plan that will shut down economic activity everywhere.
Video here.
From the description:
David Hilderman has a Bachelor of Applied Sciences in Electronic Information Systems Engineering from the University of Regina and has worked in the electronics industry since graduation in 1988.
David grew up in Saskatchewan, the second oldest in a family of six boys. Since 2000 he has lived in beautiful Saanichton British Columbia, raising two great kids with his lovely wife. He went to the Victoria area to combine his engineering experience and love of music production to work for TC-Helicon, a company that makes products for performing musicians. He worked there for 19 years, five of which were in the role of Chief Operating Officer.
Early 2020 he became aware of the fact that sea level rise rates were not accelerating. In Victoria, the rate of rise has not changed over the entire record since 1909 and is only 0.75mm/yr. This began his research in other climate alarmist claims. Reality is so counter to the narrative and the consequences of acting on the narrative are so detrimental that he felt he needed to do something about it.
In 2021 he ran in the federal election against the Green Party incumbent, Elizabeth May, and had the opportunity to debate her on the issue of climate five times. He continues to be active in his community, working to educate people on the benefits of increasing atmospheric CO2.
00:00 Introduction and Background 00:33 Understanding Carbon Dioxide Emissions 02:06 Historical Carbon Dioxide Levels 05:08 Impact of Increased Carbon Dioxide 09:26 Mathematical Analysis of Carbon Dioxide Absorption 15:50 Future Carbon Dioxide Emission Scenarios 28:42 Sea Level Rise and Climate Change 37:51 Personal Journey and Conclusion
I’ve just finished reading “Faith Seeking Freedom – Libertarian Christian Answers to Tough Questions“. The authors are Dr. Norman Horn, Doug Stuart, Kerry Baldwin and Dick Clark.
It covers 12 different subjects, plus one chapter on “Christian misconceptions on Libertainism”.
Here, I’m just going to concentrate on chapter 12: “What about the Environment and Creation?”
Here are a few quotes from that chapter:
The natural world in the beginning [of Genesis] is described as a garden. Gardens are meant to be worked, and that work inherently means that the garden is incomplete.
Therefore, the destiny of the whole earth is not pure wildland, but cultivation by its inhabitants.
Now, that does not mean we should be utterly wasteful and foolish with those resources, but it also means we do not have the right to assume we know better than our neighbor how he can use those resources that he rightfully owns.
As we use the resources that God has seen fit to grant us, we should use them as mindful stewards of a divine blessing (Matt. 25:14-30). The righteous take care to leave something of value for future generations (Prov. 13:22)
When property boundaries are clear and unambiguous, neighbors can more readily hold each other accountable.
Too often, in a system where environmental regulation is provided through government, political decision making can lead to wasted resources. Under modern environmental regulatory regimes, polluters and other bad actors may even be able to defend their harmful actions legally by pointing to government licensure and compliance with relevant regulations.
In a free society, property owners would have a better chance at holding others accountable for the environmental damage that they cause.
It is important to point out that governments do not just fail to protect the environment; in fact, they are among the worst polluters. A 2020 report concluded that the United States military is the “largest single institutional consumer of hydrocarbons in the world”.
Private property owners have a strong incentive to conserve their privately owned resources. Unfortunately, when government owns and manages natural resources, there is an incentive for private parties to attempt to get as much as they can until the resource is exhausted.
It is rational to maximise profits, and for as long as human beings live in a fallen world with scarce resources, they will seek to do so.
We must recognize that some pollution is inevitable simply because of entropy.
The bigger concern, though, is hazardous waste. [Whoever damages] someone else with their pollutant, they are liable for those damages in form of a tort (a civil lawsuit). The polluter would have to pay restitution for those damages and resotre the property (or health) of the claimant.
Models of the future are massively uncertain, and their predictions of global climates and the need to “fix” the predicted issues are dangerous at best and unjust to billions at worst.
Encourage efforts that move land and resources into private hands rather than the state.