Accessible and Affordable Energy is Critical for Human Survival

Ed Milliband—and the cronies he works with—are surely trying to kill us with their net-zero policies, which will leave us with ZERO energy security.

The availability of accessible and affordable energy is fundamentally tied to our survival and well-being. It supports every aspect of modern life and without it we’re facing catastrophic consequences. A lack of accessible and affordable energy will deepen inequality, weaken health and resilience, and undermine basic human rights.

Ed Miliband, (and those who came before him), are leading us straight into disaster, and it’s hard to see this as anything other than intentional. A recent report from the Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) hit Miliband’s £22bn “unproven” carbon capture plan with a scathing verdict, calling it a “high-risk gamble” that’s “likely to prove very expensive” and may not even work. As The Telegraph points out, this technology has never been tested, and yet he’s betting billions of our money on it.

“Ed Miliband’s decision to spend £22bn on “unproven” carbon capture technology is a high-risk “gamble” that will have a “significant” impact on bills, MPs have warned. A damning report from the Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said the technology had never been tested, was likely to prove very expensive and may not work” – per The Telegraph.

For those who think I’m off my rocker and sitting around polishing my tin foil hat, history is full of examples where energy deprivation has led to suffering and death, and where energy has been used as a weapon in warfare, crippling entire nations. Given these lessons, it’s impossible for the government to be unaware of the catastrophic effects that their reckless and unnecessary net-zero policies will have on all of us. In short, we are being dragged towards a future of sporadic access to vital energy and sky-high prices for what little energy we have left. In any rational society Milliband and his allies would be held accountable for pushing such dangerous ideas and would never be allowed near public policy again.

Energy is critical to life and survival. It powers essential systems such as food production, sanitation, transportation, technology and communication systems, public services and emergency systems, and enables economic development. Without affordable and accessible energy, we are going to face severe challenges, including widespread poverty, malnutrition, disease, and preventable deaths.

Energy is also, of course, central to modern agriculture. Mechanised farming, irrigation systems, fertiliser production, and the transportation of food all rely on energy. Without access to affordable energy, agricultural productivity declines and food becomes scarce, resulting in widespread hunger and malnutrition, which, in turn, leads to higher mortality rates. During the Irish Potato Famine (1845-1852), over one million people died from starvation and disease, exacerbated by economic policies that disrupted the food supply and energy resources needed to produce, store, and transport food. While energy scarcity wasn’t the cause of the famine, it was a significant exacerbating factor that contributed to the suffering. In more recent times, sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South Asia face energy poverty, with over 770 million people still lacking access to electricity. The inability to power irrigation systems, mechanised farming, and cold storage for food has led to food insecurity and hunger, which claim millions of lives each year.

Healthcare in this country will be very badly affected without access to reliable and affordable energy. Hospitals, clinics, and medical facilities depend on electricity to power medical equipment, (ventilators, incubators, surgical tools, diagnostic machines), refrigeration for medicines, lighting for emergency services, and heating or cooling for patient care. When energy is unavailable or unreliable, healthcare systems collapse. During the Russian Famine (1921-1922), energy shortages exacerbated the inability of the population to produce and cook food, (fuel was unavailable for heating or cooking for millions), and also directly compromised the ability to provide decent medical care for those affected by the famine. Many hospitals and medical facilities lacked fuel for heating and cooking themselves, and had little ability to sterilise medical equipment and maintain appropriate temperatures in operating rooms. Overall it is estimated that 5 million people, (perhaps even more), died during the Russian Famine.

Affordable and accessible energy is indispensable for ensuring access to clean water and sanitation. Water pumps, treatment facilities, and sewage systems require energy to function. When these systems break down, either due to lack of energy or infrastructure damage, waterborne diseases can spread rapidly, resulting in preventable deaths.

Energy is not just a commodity; it is a lifeline for human survival. It powers everything we take for granted in today’s modern world and it also enables economic stability. The absence of accessible and affordable energy, on the other hand, leads to a cascade of negative effects, including malnutrition, disease, poverty, and ultimately, death.

If energy in this country becomes unaffordable or insufficient due to the crazy limitations of ‘renewable sources’, we are going to face significant disruptions that will ripple through every aspect of our lives. With rising energy prices, everyday consumers will also feel the pinch, facing higher costs for heating, electricity, and transportation, leading to widespread poverty and social unrest as the gap between the wealthy and the poor widens. Further, as modern society's technological infrastructure depends on consistent, affordable energy, cities, which have grown increasingly reliant on energy for their complex systems, could see power outages and a breakdown in urban infrastructure, leading to chaos and migration as people flee areas where survival becomes untenable.

Why Net Zero is Bonkers and Will Harm Us

The push for net zero carbon emissions is one of the most significant and contentious policies of our time. Governments, corporations, and environmental groups have endorsed this ambitious ‘goal’, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050 or earlier, with the idea that this will prevent ‘climate change’ and secure a ‘sustainable future’. They have just omitted to tell everyone that likely half the planet is going to die from this pursuit of ‘sustainability’ – there’s nothing as mad as saving the planet, if you cause its population to die in the process.

The net-zero agenda is riddled with fundamental flaws, many of which could harm humanity in the long run. The policies driving net zero are not only impractical, but they are also unrealistic and likely to backfire in ways that could exacerbate the poverty, economic collapse, and societal instability noted above.

At the heart of the net-zero movement is the belief that reducing carbon emissions is crucial to averting ‘climate disaster’. However, the effectiveness of this policy in achieving any real environmental benefits is highly questionable. The global carbon emissions problem cannot be solved by one country, no matter how many sacrifices are made on the domestic front. This is because, in the grand scheme, global emissions are driven by the activities of many large countries, including China, India, and Russia, that have little interest in reducing their reliance on fossil fuels.

China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, has aggressively increased its coal production in recent years. Its rapid industrialisation and dependence on fossil fuels will continue to grow, making any reductions in carbon emissions in the West largely irrelevant in terms of global impact. India, with its growing population and economic aspirations, is also not likely to abandon fossil fuels anytime soon. The reality is that even if Western nations implement aggressive net-zero policies, it will not result in significant reductions in global carbon emissions if major developing economies continue their fossil-fuel- growth. Moreover, net-zero policies that focus on curbing emissions in rich nations will only serve to disadvantage these economies. As global competition continues, countries like China will have a strategic advantage, being able to produce goods at lower costs by utilising cheaper, high-emission energy sources. This inequality is likely to push more jobs and industries offshore, potentially causing a loss of competitiveness and economic decline in developed nations.

Another major issue with the net-zero agenda is, of course, the reliance on the premise that human activities are the primary drivers of climate change. There is significant debate about the extent to which human activity, specifically carbon emissions, is causing any climate change. Climate models are based on complex simulations and assumptions that remain unproven and speculative. There is still a lack of consensus among scientists about the magnitude of human influence on global climate, and many of the predictions made by climate models have never materialised. Many respected climate scientists have pointed out that the planet’s climate has always fluctuated naturally, with periods of warming and cooling occurring long before industrialisation. Therefore, to make sweeping policy decisions based on unproven assumptions is not only reckless, but totally ignores that natural forces, such as solar radiation and volcanic activity, are likely the primary drivers of any climate change that we experience, and which of course are out of our control.

Studies suggest that the net-zero push is based on flawed climate models that have consistently overestimated the future effects of climate change. The scientific community has yet to prove that drastic cuts in carbon emissions will have any meaningful impact on global temperatures in the next few decades. Rather than relying on uncertain predictions about climate change, governments should focus on addressing more immediate and pressing concerns, such as poverty, energy access, and food security, which are far more tangible and solvable.

Renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectric power are insufficient to meet this country’s energy demand, and this will remain the case for the foreseeable future. The promise of a green energy revolution is hindered by technological limitations, including the intermittent nature of wind and solar power, and the lack of efficient and scalable energy storage solutions. While proponents of net zero point to advances in renewable technology, the reality is that these solutions are still in their infancy and cannot replace the steady, reliable energy provided by fossil fuels.

The push for net-zero emissions in the UK has led us to a reduction in fossil fuel production, driving up the price of the energy that we use. This has been particularly devastating for low-income families in this country, already struggling with rising living costs. As energy prices continue to rise, the cost of food, transportation, and other essentials will also increase, plunging millions more into poverty.

For our own survival, we can’t continue down the net zero path. Miliband and his cronies have now become a real threat to our existence. If we fail to secure the ability to produce enough energy at an affordable cost, we’ll soon find ourselves without any energy security at all—and facing disastrous consequences.

Key sources you might find useful:

1. The “Climate Model Uncertainty” Critique

• Richard Lindzen: A prominent atmospheric physicist, he has been a vocal critic of climate models. He has argued that many models used in predicting the effects of climate change are too sensitive to carbon dioxide levels, and that they don't accurately reflect the complexity of the climate system. Lindzen has also pointed out that there is significant uncertainty about climate sensitivity (how much the temperature will rise per doubling of CO2), which affects the accuracy of climate predictions. See a video from Richard here:

• Lindzen, R. S., and Choi, Y. S. (2011): This paper, titled “On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data” published in Geophysical Research Letters, questioned the reliability of the feedbacks used in many climate models. They argued that the data from satellite observations of Earth’s radiation suggested that the models overestimated the sensitivity of the climate to CO2.

2. The IPCC’s Own Acknowledgment of Model Uncertainty

• IPCC Reports: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has repeatedly emphasized the uncertainty in climate projections. In the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2014) and later reports, the IPCC has consistently noted that there are uncertainties in predicting future climate scenarios. For instance, the report stated that "climate models show a wide range of possible warming values," and that "the spread in projections of future climate change is large due to uncertainties in both emissions scenarios and climate sensitivity." In other words, the models show varied results based on different assumptions.

• The 2021 IPCC Report Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis also acknowledges that the models' projections are highly sensitive to assumptions about future emissions, feedbacks, and natural climate variability. The models used to predict extreme warming scenarios have become more sophisticated, but uncertainties persist.

3. Overestimated Global Warming: The “Pause” in Warming

• The “Global Warming Pause” (1998-2012): A period of slowed warming, often called the "global warming pause" or "hiatus," has been pointed to by critics of climate models as evidence that the models have overstated the speed of warming. Several studies, such as one published in Nature (2013), suggested that climate models predicted more warming than actually occurred during this period. One of the key studies on this is “The Pause in Global Warming: A Trend or a Statistical Artifact?” (Nature, 2013). The study found that, in some cases, models significantly overestimated the rate of warming during the early 21st century, suggesting that they had not accounted for certain climate processes correctly.

• The “Pause” Debate: While some argue that this "pause" was temporary or part of natural climate variability, others, like researchers from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), have used it to argue that models may have overstated future temperature rises.

4. The “Wrong Sign” in Climate Models

• In some critiques, models have been shown to produce predictions that contradict observed reality. For example, John Christy and Roy Spencer, two prominent climatologists, have pointed out that climate models have consistently overestimated the rate of warming in the tropical upper atmosphere, a region that is key to understanding the impacts of climate change. Their work, including in "Atmospheric Temperature Trends: The Importance of Ocean Heat Content" (2012), highlighted discrepancies between modelled projections and actual observations, especially with respect to temperature changes at different altitudes.

If you're looking for more in-depth sources on the above topics, I’d recommend checking out the broader work of Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, and John Christy, as well as reports from the National Academy of Sciences, and the critiques found in outlets such as The Global Warming Policy Foundation