It was inevitable that there would be a backlash against net zero.
It was also inevitable it would come from the far right. Isobel Oakeshott highlighted the fact that it is in a tweet yesterday:
As far as I know, she still lives with Richard Tice.
She also forgets to mention that she has acknowledged that whilst she thinks these two were innocent of taking Russian money she thinks that the Brexit campaign in which they were involved did do so.
So the question has to be asked as to who is funding this campaign which plays straight into the hands of Russia as a major oil and gas producer at this precise moment?
When the world at large has realised that we need to break our dependency on oil as fast as possible, Farage, Tice and Oakeshott argue the exact opposite. To ask who is funding them to do so seems to be the minimum demand we can make of them right now.
And I very strongly suggest that unless very clear answers are given they should not be platformed. If we think that transparency is key to beating corruption now the same rule should be applied to all think tanks and campaigns who want to access the media. Say who funds you, or don't get on should be the message.
I have always made clear who funds me.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It would be the irony of ironies if Farage was being funded by his EU pension
I suspect there is more to it than this
What is the alternative? Failing to address climate change will also cost hundreds of billions and affect all our lives. At least Net Zero might give us a planet that the human race can continue to live on.
Do Isobel Oakeshott and Nigel Farage and Richard Tice deny that global warming is happening, and that people are making it worse? Do they have an alternative plan? Or do they just propose we should continue as we are, damn the consequences, and let the planet burn?
The last as far as I can see
“Net zero will cost hundreds of billions”
On what basis is this statement made. And what does it mean? Cost to whom?
Isobel Oakeshott should stick to writing books about ex-prime mincers rather than commenting on something on which she has minimal knowledge.
Investments in the hundreds of billions will need to be made to de-carb the Uk economy (& others).
The investments range from those with a good business case (renewables including PV & wind, storage and H2) through to those with a more complex business case (energy efficiency measures) where the return is over periods measured in decades.
Clearly the tweet was intended to cause alarm – but suggests that the twitterer is making as much sense (perhaps less) than the blue tits fighting (& twittering) over the nuts hanging from the feeding table in our garden.
The Ukrainian conflict produces so many potential benefits for bad actors it’s hard not to see the whole escapade as deliberately done for those outcomes. Plus it enables Putin to tie up the EU with more refugees and put it under pressure. It remains to be seen if the nationalism growing in the EU will now turn on the USSR or will it turn in on itself? It’s cruel, cold and calculated at the Kremlin as it ever was. Our ordo-liberal friends at the EU Central Bank may well be the hand maidens of the latter – you can rely them I bet to do the wrong thing.
But then again, the West went to war with Iraq for oil – did we not? Well, now its Vladimir’s turn to sit at the big boy’s table like Bush Jnr did before him. Vladimir likes status too. Teapots and kettles anyone?
With the emergence of this and the ‘anti-low carbon lobby’ (and we’ll see how it progresses with its willing idiots at the helm) I feel that we’ve just entered our ‘end of days period’ as a species don’t you?
Death Race 2022 – on a TV in your living room right now.