People whose lives are spent in the alarmist bubble now express such bewilderment when they encounter someone with even the slightest skeptical inclinations that we can only assume they long ago stopped believing any alternative points of view even exist. Into this category we would put the occasional entrepreneurs who have discovered we are concerned with climate and therefore would want to give them money to promote alarmism. For instance “By answering a few questions about your lifestyle you can find out your carbon footprint, and how to reduce it. You can then make a monthly contribution to fund carbon reduction projects like rainforest protection and mineral weathering, thus offsetting your carbon footprint.” And then there’s the classic RT interview with astrophysicist Piers Corbyn where the interviewer plainly could not believe his ears when Corbyn told him the European heat waves had “nothing to do with man” and demanded to know why, in that case, journalists kept saying the opposite. Why indeed?
Euronews Green, “Your weekly eco news and green views”, greeted the new incumbent with “What does new UK PM Liz Truss plan to do for the climate? Liz Truss comes into power as the UK faces the energy crisis – a problem deeply tied to the polluting fossil fuels the country uses to produce energy....” And the story went on to describe the views of the new Energy Secretary, all of which strike us as eminently sensible, the way an anthropologist might describe the views of a remote tribe of cannibals:
“Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg has been appointed business and energy secretary in Truss’s first cabinet. It puts him in charge of navigating the UK’s climate and energy strategy – including the plan to reach net zero. The appointment is controversial as Rees-Mogg has in the past dismissed climate science as ‘alarmism’, describing environmentalists as ‘doomsayers’. He has also criticised the closure of coal power stations, blaming the move away from fossil fuels for high energy prices. Rees-Mogg has recently said that “every last drop” of oil and gas should be extracted from the North Sea, despite the UK’s pledge to reach net zero by 2050.”
Good heavens. “These comments have left some critics sceptical about the appointment.” Including Reuters and The Independent, both disdainfully incredulous that he might dispute the journalistic consensus.
Climate Home News said “Queen Elizabeth II was a nation’s grandmother, an emblem of stability and unwavering duty as the world changed around her”. But it went on that “She was born to rule an empire, in a relatively stable climate. During her 70-year reign, former colonies asserted their independence and exploitation of fossil fuels grew to substitute for exploitation of subject peoples. Global inequities persisted as the climate crisis took hold. Her successor, King Charles III, is an outspoken advocate for climate action. The man in charge of UK energy policy, Jacob Rees-Mogg, is a monarchist with a record of climate science denial. How that shakes out matters not just for the millions of Brits facing soaring gas bills but everyone that shares this atmosphere.” So there. Or somewhere.
Euronews Green also noted that the great and the good do not believe an energy crisis can be overcome using proven sources of energy. Conceding that Truss intends to increase North Sea oil production and lift the British fracking ban anyway, they turned for reassurance to people too privileged to be inconvenienced should the alternatives fail:
“the government’s independent advisors on climate and infrastructure said on Wednesday that this plan won’t work. ‘The UK cannot address this crisis solely by increasing its production of natural gas,’ Lord Deben, chair of the Committee on Climate Change and Sir John Armitt, chair of the National Infrastructure Committee wrote in a joint letter to Truss. ‘Greater domestic production of fossil fuels may improve energy security, particularly this winter. But our gas reserves - offshore or from shale - are too small to impact meaningfully the prices faced by UK consumers.’”
Right. Just as fracking would never have made the United States energy independent. Plus it sets your tap on fire or something. Plus “The UK’s independent Climate Change Committee (CCC) also wrote to the new Prime Minister welcoming her support of the UK’s net zero target. The CCC, however, did also add that addressing the UK’s dependency on gas - rather than increasing it - is the best way out of the climate and energy crises.” At which point the story just ended. Unlike, say, the debate.