|
|||||
Samizdata quote of the day – a caricature of pre-Corn Laws ToryismThe truth of course is that ‘Net Zero’ is an article of faith. A state religion masquerading as a moral crusade despite the evidence it is expensive, ineffective, and generally regressive. Low carbon subsidies transfer wealth from the general population to landowners and corporations. It’s state socialism delivering a caricature of pre-Corn Laws Toryism. March 8th, 2026 |
 14 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – a caricature of pre-Corn Laws ToryismLeave a Reply |
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I would love to see a libertarian think tank come up with a plan to move the public back to sanity regarding Net Zero. It seems the political winds are shifting back in the right direction, but how much of the insane policies and expenditures have been reversed?
I think the answer is “quite a bit” and especially, cancelling commitments to future insane actions. But that assessment is notional (to me)…I’d like to see more concrete analysis. And I would especially like to see “A Plan”. Kind of like Project 2025 for Net Zero. Or is such already covered under Project 2025?
Any suggestions for where I might find such?
I can imagine a crowd-sourced answer coming from this community! If there is a way to get the 10 most informed, most invested Samizdatistas to collaborate on such an analysis, the product would be amazing!
A nice analogy: Richard Cobden and John Bright would have agreed with this analysis.
I don’t think that the contribution of Paul Homewood to this issue can be overestimated. As well as Ray Sanders who exposed the Met Office fabricating temperature data.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
@GregWA, March 8, 2026 at 3:57 pm
I think logic, reasoned argument and debate will not move the pubic (or the political) opinion a single nanometer towards common sense about net zero. The only way that you WILL persuade them of the stupidity is put the pedal to the metal and switch off every power station that is not “environmentally friendly” (including the ones burning wood pellets from old growth forests from half way around the planet) and contributing CO2 to the atmosphere.
Yes, this will shut down industry, put the country back to medieval living standards and conditions, shut down all modern infrastructure such as sewage, water treatment plants and all the “Mogadon for the masses” entertainment that keep them in a state of stupor.
Only by forcibly demonstrating to them what “Net Zero” means in practical terms will they realise that it might not be such a good idea.
After maybe two weeks of this, switch the power stations back on only long enough to publicise and conduct a referendum to see if everyone wants to continue the push for net zero.
The fastest way to get the progressive world to do a U-turn on global warming would be for Trump to say “you know, there may be something to this global warming stuff!”
It’s not knowledge or expertise or “the science.”
It’s just tribes.
I think the best way to address it is to sidestep the claims and counterclaims about how much the earth is warmed, what has driven that and whether it will lead to disaster. Focus instead on the failings of Net Zero. My (UK leaning) talking points would be:
Renewable energy is both unreliable and expensive. Those who claim otherwise are lying.
Importing oil and gas, while banning its exploitation at home, is simply deranged.
Nuclear energy is reliable and non-basket case developed nations can build it twice as fast and for half the price as our failing state
The ‘Green’ movement’s opposition to nuclear shows that it is not serious about reducing emissions
Britain’s Net Zero madness has destroyed jobs, entire industries and hampered growth, while making zero difference to global CO2 emissions
The government’s Net Zero pathway is based on a combination of ridiculous assumptions and plans to reduce freedom
Following up on Stonyground’s comment, a separate front of attack would be to expose the lies of the Met Office.
It is also worth mentioning, if the “Climate Crisis” is as serious as they say it is, why do they need to lie about it? Don’t the facts just speak for themselves?
It has always been clear to me that there is no reason to be concerned about rising CO2 levels. CO2 has never been an important driver of climate variation. But it is important for plantlife, and for that reason we should be pleased about the rising levels.
It must not be supposed that the leaders of the opposition to the repeal of the Corn Laws were operating from self interest – their followers may have been, but not the leaders.
Sometimes it was weird snobbery – such as Lord Bentinck – who pointed out that as a raiser of horses and cattle he would financially benefit from an end of the Corn Law, but did not want “the land” to be told what to do by “the town”.
In the case of Lord Stanley (Earl of Derby) they were operating from ideological statism – J.S. Mill described Stanley-Derby as the most principled man in British politics, but that sadly his principles could be summed up in one word “Liberticide” (ever more statism in all aspects of life) – and Disraeli tagged along behind him, Disraeli also never met a state intervention he did not like (although he tended to be vague, very vague, on the details of even his own measures – enough for him to want to “do something” about housing, or education, or whatever – with the details of the “something” to be worked out by others).
When the Liberal Party was taken over by statists (some had always been in that camp – for example Lord Russell, whom the history books, absurdly, describe as pro laissez faire), Herbert Spencer described the “New Liberalism” as “the New Toryism” – thinking of the Derby-Disraeli strain of statism in the Tory camp.
Certainly there were anti statist traditions among the Tory folk as well (see the late Professor Greenleaf’s book “The British Political Tradition” – specifically the section titled “The Libertarian Strand”), but the Derby-Disraeli sickness was severe.
As for today – the idea that Net Zero is driven by the financial interests of landowners and corporations is mistaken. If only it was! For if it was so driven – it would be much less difficult to defeat.
No doubt special interests financially benefit – but they are not the driving force of policy (they never are in Britain) – the driving force of policy is, as always, ideological statism – the belief that state action “helps the people” (“the greatest happiness of the greatest number” as the 13 Departments of State statist Jeremy Bentham put it) and the normal following of intellectual fads and fashions (from a small intellectual elite – down to everyone else).
Once policy is set – inertia sets in, it is incredibly difficult to move the state to another path.
This is why to British eyes the actions of President Trump, ditching Net Zero (at least to some extent – at State level it continues), and such things as getting out of the totalitarian World Health Organisation, are so astonishing.
There would be no way to such things here – the “experts” and officials would not allow it, any elected government that tried to change Policy (capital “P”) so radically – would be removed.
WHY are liberal party supporting statists such as Jeremy Bentham and Lord Russell (both very statist people indeed – endlessly pushing more state interventions into XYZ) called supporters of “laissez faire” in the history books?
I believe the answer is that historians became so obsessed with the Corn Laws debate, and with foreign trade generally, that they confused support for “free trade” with support for laissez faire.
So, in their eyes, someone could support endless statism – but, as long as they supported this “free trade” (free external trade) they were “liberal supporters of laissez faire”. This confusion is demented – but common.
John Bright (who, along with Richard Cobden, did more than anyone else to oppose the Corn Laws) feared that the cry of “Free Trade” would be distorted (twisted) into support for worse interventions – such as an Income Tax, and so it proved. Although John Bright died before the Income Tax was made “Progressive” – at least it was a flat rate (over a certain, rather high, income) in his lifetime.
Sir Robert Peel always intended his reintroduction of the Income Tax in the 1840s to be temporary – and Gladstone (his follower) got the Income Tax down to a low point in 1874 and had he won the election of that year, would have abolished it.
But, alas, Gladstone lost the election of 1874 – and liberty has been in decline in Britain since the 1870s.
And, before anyone pointed it out, I know that Gladstone himself was partly to blame – going along with the pub licensing measures, supporting (some years before) the creation of the Civil Service, and supporting the Foster Act of 1870 – which created state schools in most of England and Wales (just as Stanley-Derby and his friend Lord Russell has created a state education system in Ireland in the 1830s).
All very depressing for a Monday morning.
Surely a lot depends on whether the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (CAGW)is true or not? I’d love it to be a crock but as things stand it has not been disproved, is widely believed and remains plausible.
@Patrick – Carl Sagan had it about right when he stated the principle that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
CAGW is not only implausible, it is so by orders of magnitude.
It does not need to be disproven, as it does not apply the scientific methods for proof in the first place.
It’s like the claim about retreat of the northern Ice sheets leading to the extinction of the polar bears. Certainly sounded plausible in some David Attenborough voice-over documentary, but when you look at it in detail the truth was the opposite and polar bear numbers are far higher now than they were when the original claim was made.
The Scots have a great term for it. “Not Proven”. A claim has been made for sure, but all the evidence to date has demonstrated that any impact humans have on the environment is minuscule (and declining) in comparison to natural factors.
Doesn’t matter how many dodgy powerpoint presentations Al Gore makes, how many non-existent “proxy” temperature readings the biased scientists try to inflate. At best the climate is reverting back towards the mean after a cold period, all of which is entirely natural during the current interglacial period.
Another aspect of scientific evidence is falsifiability. A theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable. It must make specific, testable predictions that could be shown to be false. Falsifiability distinguishes science from pseudoscience, metaphysics, or untestable claims.
What prediction have the CAGW proponents ever made which has come true and could not be caused by other factors? None that I am aware of. Secondly, what set of circumstances could arise that would prove CAGW was false? Again, none that it’s proponents have made claims of.
So, it’s pseudo science. Right up there with Phrenology.
Not as much as people think.
If it is true, then there is an additional incentive to build nuclear power plants. That’s all, apart from the purely scientific interest of the CAGW hypothesis.
Snorri Godhi is correct – even if the Carbon Dioxide theory was true, it would in no way justify the British government “Net Zero” policy.
British Carbon Dioxide emissions are about 1% of the world total – they are rounding error. As for the government policy of wind turbines and solar cells, rather than a rapid expansion of small nuclear power stations, the policy is an error = regardless of whether or not the Carbon Dioxide is evil theory is true or false.