Forget global boiling, the public are boiling with rage – over fantasy climate policy that’s totally unaffordable

SOMETHING is shifting.

For years our politicians and others have all bowed down to the great climate cult of our time.

7

7

They have told us we all face imminent death if we do not change.

Whether it is Conservatives, Labour or anything in between, our leaders have told us the planet is warming.

And not just warming but now — they insist — “boiling”.

With dire threats they have said that every time a cow farts or you get on a plane for your summer holiday we all kill the planet a little more.

As right and left have whipped this story along, they have told us there is an answer.

We must all change our lives completely, and if we do so then we might — just might — avoid burning to death.

It is a claim that finds its illogical conclusion in groups such as Just Stop Oil who believe their cause is so urgent that absolutely anything can be done to draw our attention to it.

Stop ambulances on their way to hospital? Absolutely fine.

Stop people getting to a job interview? No problem.

It’s all worth it because these groups are saving ourselves from ourselves. Apparently.

It is strange how little push-back all this has got.

Never mind the actual claims themselves, there has been little push-back even against the measures that the Government and others want to put in place.

As it happens, Britain is responsible for a tiny percentage of global carbon emissions.

And even if Britain did decide to return to being a rural society, why would rising powers such as China and India follow our example?

These countries are among the world’s biggest polluters and, sad to say, they do not look to Britain to guide them in the 21st century.

The whole grandstanding around climate change has long been a luxury claim.

Because everybody who has studied it knows that if we did do the things the climate alarmists would have us do, we would be toast.

In a totally different way.

A new poll published at the weekend shows that a clear 71 per cent of people support the idea of reducing our carbon emissions.

They even support the idea of getting to zero carbon emissions by 2050.

But when the specific policies this entails are put to voters, the story changes radically.

As we have seen with the great rebellion against London’s ULEZ scheme, the public can be pushed too far.

And we can now see where.

More voters oppose the plan to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 than support it.

And when it comes to issues such as starting to phase out new gas boilers from 2035, the people who the Conservatives need to win back at the next election are flat against it.

Because the point is that all of this costs.

There are lots of reasons for the current cost-of-living crisis, from the fall-out of the Covid years to the war in Ukraine.

But at a time when everybody’s wallets are hurting, the Green nuttery just makes everything worse.

Again and again, the things that were demanded of us turn out to have a price tag attached. And a pretty hefty one at that.

More voters care about the cost-of-living crisis than the Net Zero mania.

Indeed, many people say they only agree with policies to reduce carbon emissions if they do not bring extra costs to the average household.

Interestingly enough, figures like this are starting to get noticed by politicians.

We have had almost 20 years of people from David Cameron onwards telling us what we have to do to save the planet.

But these politicians come and go, while the situation for most households in this country has not got appreciably better.

The Conservatives managed to win a by-election in Hillingdon, West London, the other week, likely solely thanks to the fact that local residents were angry about the ULEZ expansion.

Like people in the other areas where that scheme is being expanded to, these locals were angry at the extra costs brought about by it.

But unlike many other people, the voters there had a chance to make their voice heard.

And they used it to object to London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s scheme.

Perhaps the Conservatives can take note of all this. Because there is a lot of good that could in fact come from this.

Almost everybody in the country cares about the environment.

Most people are aware that we should do our bit to help reduce carbon emissions.

But we cannot do more than our bit. And we cannot impoverish ourselves in the process of trying to do more than our bit.

And nor should we.

When it comes to climate policy the fantasy is finally meeting reality. People are indeed starting to boil.

But it is with rage at the costs being imposed on us.

Politicians have talked a lot about 2050. Let’s see how they deal with 2024 first.

FANCY A NICE WALK?

Of course the whole point of the ULEZ scheme is to chase motorists out of our cars.

So how are we meant to get around?

7

Well, sometimes there is a train service in this country. Not often. But sometimes. When the train unions aren’t striking.

Still, there must be some other way to get around? Buses, for instance?

Well, new figures out this week from the Department for Transport revealed that at least 1,500 bus routes in England were cut in the past two years alone.

According to Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain, the number of local routes fell from 12,000 in 2021 to fewer than 9,000 this year.

That certainly fits with my own experience in rural parts of our country, where if you don’t have a car you are increasingly stuck.

Something that especially affects elderly people.

So how do our politicians think we should get around? We get fined if we drive.

We have to put up with strikes if we want to use the trains. And the bus routes are shutting.

Perhaps the return to a pre-industrial society really is under way and we’ll all just be expected to walk from now on.

KYLIE’S FUTURE PROOF

THERE was a time when stars went to Vegas to retire.

A venue they went to if they hadn’t had a hit in decades.

7

7

“I didn’t know he was still alive” was the response to some acts.

But that’s all changed. And one sign is the announcement that Kylie Minogue is going to do a residency there.

Travel packages are already on sale for the all-in Kylie experience.

And since she currently has one of the hits of the summer, people can hardly pretend she is anywhere but at the height of her career.

Still, at least if she ever does go into a career sunset she’s ready for it.

When he got on in years, Frank Sinatra used to fumble through his lyrics in Vegas and elsewhere.

Kylie, by contrast, just has to sing “Padam, Padam” and “Na na na, na na na na na”.

A clever retirement plan, should the star ever need it.

HOME TRUTH

IN March a full third of British workers said they would quit their job if they were ordered back to the office full time.

That’s quite a shift. And not in the way we used to mean.

Well, here’s some news for those people. Even Zoom is ordering its staff back to the office.

All those people who think they can work from home for the rest of their life should reflect on this.

If Zoom is ordering people back to the office, chances are a lot of other people will be asked back.

And if you want to keep your job, then here’s a thought.

Flexibility from employers may be a good thing.

But flexibility from employees might be necessary, too.

Like turning up to the place you work, for starters.

ATTACKING AMANDA IS SIMPLY  A DRAG

THE new Strictly line-up includes the actress Amanda Abbington.

No sooner was this announced than some banshees on social media dredged up an old tweet in which she complained a drag show aimed at parents with babie, was “abhorrent”.

7

7

Now she is being accused of being “transphobic”, anti-LGBTQIA+ and much more.

And as usual she has had to make a begging-for-her-career apology.

I don’t see why. She did nothing wrong. You can appreciate drag if you like.

But there is no reason why babies need to be exposed to drag shows.

Drag was a specific form of entertainment for a specific set of adults.

It does not need to be rolled out across society – including to the very youngest – in the name of “inclusion”.

Oh, and by the way, drag is not the same as “trans”.

Drag is men dressing up as women to be the object of fun.

Completely different from trans people, surely?

Or are Abbington’s critics the actually “transphobic” ones here?