It is easy to understand why those who are not fully down with the whole Green alarmist agenda are annoyed at the fracking ban under Rishi Sunak’s new administration. (In reality, local authorities could and would still try and stop it, even if it was legal at the national level.)
A problem with the ban, though, is that it says something about the approach of the Sunak administration: it is in thrall to the Precautionary Principle. Don’t do anything if there is the slightest risk of harm to the environment or if it upsets some local people. And that means that on issues such as house building, new nuclear power plants, roads, Heathrow third runway or a “Boris island” in East London, or anything else, the risk is that nothing much gets done.
Lest anyone think this is a purely Tory issue, it isn’t. A Labour government is unlikely to be like the Attlee/Wilson ones where there was at least a sort of working class affinity with industry. Trade unionists used to be proud of how they worked in mines, factories and shipyards. They got dirt under their fingernails, and they wore this as a badge of pride. Today’s post-modernist Left bemoans developments such as the demise of steel production, but fails to join the dots between this and the deliberate raising of energy prices through “Green transition” policies. Also, much of the modern Left does not reside in the industrial sector, but is more about the public sector. So the problem is one of a wider cultural/philosophical aversion to making things or doing things that are in any way “dirty”.
Meanwhile, countries such as India and China, or Indonesia, suffer no such inhibitions. And we will import energy and other products from nations that are likely to enforce less stringent controls on pollution. And yet the likes of Starmer, and various commentators, will bemoan the demise of UK manufacturing. But if we refuse to build reliable, cheap energy (wind and solar don’t count, being weather-reliant), then our demise as an industrial power will continue. (Fossil Future, by Alex Epstein, is a must-read and corrective to current alarmist nonsense, not least because it addresses the philosophy of the Greens, and provides an alternative. Too few debunkers of Greens do this.)
A few days ago I went to Battersea Power Station, now fully refurbished and turned into a shopping mall and apartment block, with various offices and things like art galleries. I can admire the architecture, the lovely industrial-style touches and the gantries and machinery. But what strikes me as symbolic of modern Britain is that we have turned a power station into a shop, and when the wind doesn’t blow and sun doesn’t shine, and we haven’t enough baseload power, the building will go dark. That’s where decades of evasion and Green ideology have taken us.
We are turning into a theme park.
Update: Germany is keen to be a theme park too. Major chemicals manufacturers, unable to withstand surging energy costs, are moving out, according to this Reuters report
Excellent post, especially the last paragraph.
I am reminded yet again of Lenin’s remark “The worse, the better”.
He had a point: it seems wrong to wish for something so awful and damaging, but perhaps we actually need those blackouts and shortages, to bring these ignorant dreamers to their senses.
Obviously I am a horrible cynic, but I think Sunak has been appointed governor of Britannia and has stopped fracking because Rome wills it so. Local considerations are irrelevant.
No Mr Sunak is not in thrall to the “Precautionary Principle” – he knows there is no danger from fracking, he said so in a video some time ago. Nor was banning fracking in the Conservative Manifesto of 2019 – as is now falsely being claimed.
Fracking is against Policy – namely the Net Zero Policy. And that is that.
Mr Sunak also said, only a few weeks ago during the leadership campaign (the election the Gentleman lost) that he would set up a unit to review all E.U. laws and repeal many of them in regard to the United Kingdom.
This will not happen – because it is against Policy.
The assumption behind the post is that the United Kingdom is a democratic country in which elected politicians decide what the government does and what it does not do.
Where is the evidence for that assumption?
Do not mistake me – I want the assumption to be CORRECT, I really do.
This does not appear to be entirely true in the United States – at least not at State level.
For example, some directly elected State Governors (such as that of South Dakota) refused to impose a Covid lockdown – even though this was international Policy. Some countries refused as well – not just Sweden, but also such dictatorships as Belarus and Nicaragua (now both under international sanctions – the Nicaraguan gold industry is being put under American sanctions), the local dictators resented being TOLD what to do by international Policy – I suspect they will now be taught a lesson (indeed this is already happening).
I would be astonished to see an elected government in the United Kingdom go against international Policy – whether it was Covid lockdowns, “Net Zero”, “Diversity and Inclusion”, or anything else.
This is not to say that elected politicians in the United Kingdom make no difference, they do make a difference, but they have to accept core international Policy – at least that appears to be the case.
Over the next few years de facto Climate lockdowns will be imposed – as it is not practical for most people to have electric cars (the grid could not power them) and cars powered by hydrocarbons are being pushed out by taxes, artificially high prices for fuel, and endless regulations.
I do not know whether any American States will really oppose this agenda – how could they when it is backed by the corporations as well as government? Not that there is a real difference between the government and corporate bureaucracy – I argued, for many years, that there was, but I was mistaken (have a look at the people who make up the board of “Black Rock” – an organisation that “manages” about ten Trillion, Trillion-with-a-T, worth of investments, State Street and Vanguard, and the rest, are committed to the same agenda on many matters).
One “cannot buck the market” – and as Prime Minister Truss found out “the market” is a few large corporations backed by the Credit Money of the Central Banks. Richard Cantillon, some three centuries ago, showed how Credit Money undermines a Free Market, concentrating economic power in a few hands at the expense of everyone else – but the situation today is beyond his worst nightmares.
BlackRock alone may now control a third of the mortgages in the United States – people will be pushed out from owning their homes to renting accommodation (that idea has been in the works since the start of the 1990s).
All aspects of human life are to be controlled – “digital currency” will achieve that. However, I think there is a flaw in the international plans.
The Saint-Simon style “Stakeholder Capitalism”, Corporate State (totalitarian collectivism that does not destroy Big Business – but has Big Business, especially the financial entities, as an active partner) system will not work, it is against Economic Law (which is part of Natural Law) and it will collapse.
At least that is my belief.
In spite of his very many real faults – President Donald John Trump rejected international Policy on many matters. He even went to Davos and mocked them – to their faces.
This is why he was removed in the blatantly rigged election of 2020 – and that is why people are persecuted for pointing out that the election was rigged.
The media will not accept that the 2020 United States Presidential Election was rigged, indeed they will brutally mock anyone who points out that it was (declaring that they are insane, or Fascists, or whatever), because this is NOT really about Donald John Trump – this is about international Policy.
If Mr Trump had gone along with Policy there would have been no smear campaign by the FBI and the “Justice” Department against him from 2016 onwards (even if had been a real criminal – after all Mr Joseph Biden has committed many crimes over many years and the FBI and the “Justice” Department are not interested) and he would still be President today.
People who demand that politicians go against international Policy do not grasp that there is a heavy price to pay for doing so.
No Mr Sunak is not in thrall to the “Precautionary Principle” – he knows there is no danger from fracking, he said so in a video some time ago. Nor was banning fracking in the Conservative Manifesto of 2019 – as is now falsely being claimed.
I think that the two don’t necessarily contradict one another. Part of the PP is not being seen to be “non-sensible” – to go against received wisdom of the moment (such as not upsetting the “bond vigilantes”, or IMF, or whoever. What your argument boils down to is that Mr Sunak is not an autonomous human being with volitional consciousness, but a zombie, with less free will than a Sam Harris or somesuch over-rated thinker grants us.
But if this is true, to what end? What is the point for Mr Sunak executing a policy he knows is bonkers? The man is very rich, and has a lovely family and has enjoyed a relatively successful life. What on earth is there for him in having his life put under constant scrutiny from hostile press, etc, to do things he knows are mad and bad?
What is it about this WEF/Davos/IMF (insert villains of choice) narrative that I am missing? Are they using mad hypnosis, like Blofeld in his Swiss mountain lair in the Ian Fleming story?
Help me out here.
“One “cannot buck the market”” – true in some circumstances, such as ours at present: if you borrow a ton of money (even fake money) and show signs of wishing to borrow even more, then you must do as your creditors wish.
Otoh, if you run a balanced economy and live within your means, and don’t need an astronomical overdraft facility, then there are no creditors and you get to do as you wish. More or less.
I don’t expect this ever to happen, so Paul’s assertion will remain true, even thought it is not general.
I think the real problem with the “global elites” and their whores, wannabes, creatures (enter epithet of choice) is that they assume they can reduce a population to essentially medieval servitude without affecting their own standard of living, that standard, of course, relying on people they want impoverish supporting them.
These wannabes comprise a surprisingly large section of the population. I know quite a few people who smugly tell me how I will have to lump a milk float or how much in bungs they get from their solar panels. I get nothing else, the professed “saving of the planet” is replaced by a nasty sneering about a Planck time after I express my doubts (much more than doubts of course, but I always start off politely).
A medieval prince lived a brutish life of want, ignorance and poverty compared to even the most mundane inhabitant of even a second world country today. I ask these people what makes them think the taxpayer teat sucking non jobs the vast majority of them seem to have will continue in this stagnant – sorry, “sustainable” – utopia.
I’ve never had an actual answer (nor do I exe t one)
My real fear is that we may have passed a point of no return and that when the tide turns (it always does) there will not be enough people with the necessary skills and knowledge to enable recovery
If the west is destroyed – which does seem to be the aim – I am far from convinced that India, China etc going forward could continue what the west has done for the last few centuries.
The 19th century was British, the 20th American (with, all things considered, a reasonably smooth transition between them).
Maybe the 22nd century will be the Chinese or Indian. If so, glad I won’t be around to see it!
Johnathan Pearce – I cannot really argue with a lot of what you say.
The international Policies (“Policies with a P”) are horrible – they are causing terrible harm – we are agreed on this.
Mr Sunak is a kindly and intelligent man who does not want to cause harm – we are agreed on this.
Mr Sunak is very rich and could sit on a beach with his family – we are agreed on this.
I suppose it is a matter of “I can still make a difference – at least in some matters”.
That may even be TRUE – at least when it comes to some details of Policy.
As for the motivation of Dr Schwab and all the rest of them.
“We, in this room, will decide the future” says Dr Schwab – quite openly, he knew he was being filmed saying this.
I rather doubt that, for example, the People’s Republic of China really obeys the World Economic Forum and so on. Dr Schwab’s son is based in China and continually boasts that the Chinese government follows the advice of the international establishment – and the Chinese government smiles and lets these fools think that.
Dr Schwab and the others clearly THINK they control the world – but I suspect they just really have a lot of influence in the Western world.
Not the same thing at all.
In short – they think they are like Blofeld, but they are not really like him at all.
It all goes back a long way – even in the 1960s there was the Club of Rome, and there were also major banks (such as the one headed by Mr Rockefeller – an American Dutch family, not a Jewish one, Conspiracy Theorists please note) who wanted world “governance” and the control of all aspects of life by a partnership of government and Big Business.
What has happened is that these vague desires have got gradually turned into international agreements – at first “legally nonbinding” and then national laws.
It is really all CULTURAL – the education system and the media assume that government intervention is a good thing, it is “Social Reform”. And that “international cooperation” is a good thing as well.
And there really are people, such as the former adviser to Mr Cameron, who believe that “the state works!”
If one really believes that “the state works!” at least if the “right people” are in charge – then all the raving insanity naturally follows.
I suspect that if Dr Schwab and the rest vanished tomorrow – international Policy would be exactly the same.
Although I may be being a bit hard on the WEF crowd.
When I was born (and when you were born Johnathan Pearce) the “Empire State” (New York) was still an incredibly productive place – indeed there were many people still alive who could remember when it was the most productive place in the history of the world.
It must have been easy for “educated” people such as Governor Nelson Rockefeller (a Republican – not a Democrat) to believe that government (especially world governance) could achieve anything.
It was all quite mad – but it continues, on an international government and corporate level.
By the way, and I did NOT know this in 2016, Donald John Trump and his father in the 1960s were privately “Goldwater Republicans” not “Rockefeller Republicans” – even though they lived in New York.
In short – even then they had some doubts about the benevolent potential of government, and some doubts about world “governance”.
It is all more “Star Trek” than James Bond, Johnathan Pearce.
A “united world” providing “schools and hospitals, and providing the basic needs of everyone”.
That was the vision of “Reform minded” Democrats and Republicans as far back as the 1960s – indeed long before.
Government and Big Business working hand in hand – for the greater good.
I think it is all terrible folly – but then I also think that the rebuilding of Albany (the capital of New York State) by Governor Rockefeller in the 1960s was horrible.
As for Progressive Republicans – they go back far beyond Liz Cheney and her dreams of world “governance” – or the same dream by Nelson Rockefeller and the others.
As far back as President Garfield there was the dream of an honest and “scientific” Civil Service (like that of Sir Charles Trevelyan in the United Kingdom) and a system of Federal government schools (limited government – what is that?) to make sure that black people did not become “an American peasantry” (supposedly a bad thing).
Government could achieve anything, anything at all, and free trade was about achieving international governance – having benevolent government all over the world. So free trade was not really an economic thing (I support economic free trade) it was a Political Project – as “common institutions” would (supposedly) be needed in such a world.
After all President Garfield was not just a politician – he was also a Minister of Religion, and there were many people like him all over the Western world.
They would use the power of government to create Heaven on Earth – BlackRock and co are not formally religious, but they have the same vision today.
Of course, there has always been the other point of view.
Long before Senator Goldwater, there was Senator Roscoe Conkling (Republican New York).
He did not want the Civil Service, the benevolent and “scientific” government all over the world.
These days someone like Senator Conkling would be smeared as a “racist” (or whatever) – although the reality was that he was strongly committed to Civil Rights for black people and everyone else.
It was just that his definition of a “right” was a limitation on government power, not a good or service from government.
Perhaps the modern “Progressive” view of government really does come from Puritan New England, the “City on the Hill” and all that – an idea I once mocked.
By the way – Sir Charles Trevelyan, the creator of the British Civil Service, also seems to have suffered from religious mania.
Even the disaster in Ireland (which reduced the population by a third) was the benevolent work of God – in the mind of Sir Charles Trevelyan.
The modern international elite also seem to think that the world population needs to be radically reduced.
Paul Marks (in regard to Eco-Lockdowns due to e-cars not being able to charge and ICE cars being regulated to non-existence): I do not know whether any American States will really oppose this agenda – how could they when it is backed by the corporations as well as government? Not that there is a real difference between the government and corporate bureaucracy – I argued, for many years, that there was, but I was mistaken (have a look at the people who make up the board of “Black Rock” – an organisation that “manages” about ten Trillion, Trillion-with-a-T, worth of investments, State Street and Vanguard, and the rest, are committed to the same agenda on many matters).
Yes, absolutely Americans WILL pushback over that. Everyone in America loves their car, even those poor lost souls that live in cities. Nevermind the problems of mass transit in the US (bums on trains, lack of reliability), the lack of public transportation in rural areas, that out power grid hasn’t been taxed to the point that we’re talking about rolling blackouts outside of over-populated areas like California, or even that so many small businesses depend on cars and trucks and vans. It comes down to this:
Americans LOVE the sense of freedom getting in the car and driving for a few hours provides them.
We might not do much when it comes to actual freedom being taken from us, but telling one’s constituency that they WILL give up their cars, or voting for a policy that means cars never leave the garage, will result in a politician getting kicked to the curb and if there is anything that politicians want more than pushing an agenda it is to keep being politicians.
One of our hosts here, and I apologize for not recalling who, once said that there was no spider at the center of the web, it was emergent behavior. I can think of no other reason why people are pursuing policies which must, eventually, negatively impact them as well.
Steven R, I so hope that you are right about what Americans will do WRT their cars. I can imagine that scenario of effective resistance playing out, but I’ve gotten used to being disappointed about what Americans will “resist.” Don’t underestimate the power of federal control over much transportation funding. Those dollars will speak VERY loudly and that, combined with a concerted effort to make ICE drivers into second-class citizens (it is coming), might make our freedom into a much more puny thing.
@Roué le Jour
People are short-sighted and want immediate gratification and/or solutions that don’t require work. So they don’t read the fine print when some stylish candidate with a nice smile comes along and says “vote for me, I’ve got it all figured out”
When the costs of that candidate’s plan comes due and some other stylish candidate with a nice smile comes along with a new solution, the process starts anew.
Gene
I just remember that no matter how much the Feds pushed the 55mph limit that the voters in each state demanded that the states ignore that edict, even at the cost of Federal dollars. It took a while, but eventually even the Feds had to admit the policy was a failure.
We’re seeing it now with more and more states decriminalizing marijuana despite it still being illegal per the Feds.
that was one of the jokes from this book from the 70s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_80s:_A_Look_Back_at_the_Tumultuous_Decade_1980%E2%80%931989
Steven R, I’m old enough to have lived through the 55mph days from the beginning, and would point out that even the youngest people who would have resisted that speed limit at the time are now by and large in their 60s, and that a huge cohort of the Americans who resisted it at the time are now dead. It’s a different population now. And … I doubt very much that we can rely on much of today’s decriminalize-reefer crowd as allies in keeping our road freedoms.
Again, hoping you’re right, but unwilling to make any bets on that.
I hope you are right Steven R.
As for motivations of the international establishment – it is all a bit weird.
They contradict themselves.
They really do contradict themselves – for example there was an article on the destruction (blowing up) of the “Georgia Stones” in the Economist magazine.
The article said that the stones had carved on them, amongst other things, the demand for a world population of 500 million people (which means the vast majority of us have-to-go – or, at least, must not have children).
Now the Economist magazine article quotes the monuments (put up illegally – no one gave permission for these stones to be put up there) and seemed to express approval for what was carved on them – but then said the whole thing was a paranoid conspiracy theory.
One often sees this contradiction.
Something (say Agenda 2030) will be “good”, “benevolent” when people are speaking in support of it – but then will be a “paranoid conspiracy theory” as soon as someone speaks against it.
I do not understand – I really do not understand.
How can a plan be real when people are speaking (or writing) in support of it – but a “paranoid conspiracy theory” as soon as anyone opposes it?
Anyway – I suspect it would be a good idea to avoid new medications handed out by these people, at least if you want to have children.
The wicked person who attacked Paul Pelosi (an 82 year old man) with a hammer deserves to go to prison for a long time.
However, look how the media are using the attack – the man posted “false conspiracy theories” on Facebook.
What are these “false conspiracy theories”?
That Mr Geroge Floyd died of a drug overdose – which he did.
That the 2020 Presidential Election was rigged – which it was.
That the Covid injections are dangerous, that they can cause injury and death – which is true.
So now anyone who tells the truth. about these matters – they will be accused of being like a person who uses a hammer on a 82 year old man.
And a week before the elections that were going to take back the House and the Senate from the Democrats.
Only just looked it up – each true statement is presented with the word “falsely” in front of it by the media sources I got using a search engine.
It would be like saying…
“The brutal attacker falsely claimed that 1+1=2, and the brutal attacker also falsely claimed that William of Normandy invaded England in 1066, and he even falsely claimed that gold is a metal!”.
Every true statement that the establishment does not like will now be “falsely claimed” by the brutal hammer attacker of an 82 year old man.
So. if you say that 1+1=2 you must be a brutal attacker of an 82 year old man.
After all you both “falsely claim ” that 1+1=2, and make the “false claim” that William of Normandy invaded England in 1066. So, you must also go around hitting 82 year old people over the head with a hammer.
The media will do this – just watch them do it, for-the-elections.
I have become jaded. I see that everyone in the media is excited to claim Pelosi’s attacker was right wing, and my initial reaction is “yeah, so?” Attacks on Rand Paul, Rep. Scalise, Justice Kavanaugh, the entire city of Minneapolis . . . didn’t faze them. Heck, they celebrated.
At least I won’t celebrate this attack, but I’m sure as hell not going to feel any tribal shame.
bobby b – the media will use the attack to discredit “false claims” and “conspiracy theories”.
This is what the truth (and it is the truth) is being described as – even in the Fox News article covering the attack.
Anyone who tells the truth (about George Floyd, about the Covid injections, about anything) will be accused of being the same as someone who attacks an 82-year-old man with a hammer.
There is just one thing the international establishment elite can NOT rig – and that is the economic collapse.
This evil (and it is evil – not just irrational) system is going to collapse.
That is tragic because vast numbers of people are going to suffer horribly – and reform could have prevented that suffering. But at least the system is going to go.
The dream of total control of everyone (in every aspect of their life) by the corporate and government bureaucracy just is not going to work.
My initial reaction to such a media narrative is not “yeah so?” but “If so, …”. 🙂 I very much take bobby b’s point about the double standard, but I’d have phrased it to indicate it applies only if the Jussie Smollet standard does not prove more relevant. There is also the ‘Gabrielle Giffords’ standard, where assigning the perp as ‘right wing’ is false, and assigning the perp anywhere on a simple left/right spectrum is hard. If we cannot get in the habit of saying, when a new narrative breaks, “Well, remembering Jussie Smollet and the rest, sense is to know we’ll know more tomorrow”, then how can we encourage the public to do so?
I don’t know how this tale will end. We’ll see whether the PC media would have been wiser to follow my advice and delay a bit longer before replacing investigation with conclusion. On the other hand, maybe they were wiser regardless, from their PoV, to sell it as a simple right-wing outrage before it became clear whether it was (in which case what gain to them from waiting) or wasn’t (can always just stop talking about it at all, hoping some heard you who will not hear more).
Niall has it right. Claim outrage, get the media to say say it was the right-wing and MAGA and Trump and white extremism and whatever else it might be. Shape the narrative early. Then when facts finally come out no one will care what the truth of the matter is; all that matters is the event is entrenched in minds are yet another right-win attacker, Trump, MAGA, etc., etc., etc.
So, just a left-wing nut in the throes of a new psychosis.
https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/pelosi-attack-suspect-was-a-psychotic
bobby b (October 29, 2022 at 8:35 pm), if the story were important enough over here, the Daily Mail’s headline might be
As Natalie remarked once, they just dump all the news on you and let you sort it out. Beats having an agenda.
Apologies if I missed anything. I confess I do not feel I’ve got to the bottom of this story yet and, like the DM sometimes, just amalgamated all – well, most 🙂 – of what I’ve seen to date into a singe sentence.
Niall K, I’m just waiting for them to announce that it was a Grindr date gone wrong.
What if the Precautionary Principle were applied TO the Precautionary Principle?
It just gets more fun.
https://www.smobserved.com/story/2022/10/29/news/the-awful-truth-paul-pelosi-was-drunk-again-and-in-a-dispute-with-a-male-prostitute-early-friday-morning/7191.html?m=true
And yet somehow it will still be tied to Trump and MAGA and the GOP’s fault.