UK judges to force faster Net Zero on government
In this news round-up of the week for Friday 3rd May 2024. The UK government loses a case seeking to force it to improve its plans to achieve net zero by 2050, even as the US government wins a similar case there. A massive heatwave is gripping large parts of south and southeast Asia, described by one scientist as the 'most extreme climatic event in history'. And Boris Johnson's routine incompetence in government comes back to bite him, while the conservatives lose big in the latest local elections.
Support Mallen's work on Patreon!
/ mallenbaker
Support Mallen via Paypal
paypal.me/mallenbaker
The ‘Dangerously Reasonable’ channel by Mallen Baker covers news, current affairs, science and politics. It aims to be independent, fact-focused and non-ideological. A rational and reasoned approach to some of the difficult issues of our time, looking for how we can best survive and thrive in the modern world.
Quotes reported in this video should not be taken as an implication of their author’s endorsement or involvement in this video.
Support Mallen's work on Patreon! patreon.com/mallenbaker Support Mallen via Paypal paypal.me/mallenbaker My rules for comments in this forum. You can post your opinion freely in the comments to any of my videos. I like to engage with people on arguments and issues. I will, time permitting, happily engage with comments that are polite and broadly on topic for the video in question. You can still post what you want but if you want a response from me, those are the criteria. If you want to preface your biting critique with an observation of what a total idiot I am, knock yourself out, but I won't respond to those comments any more than I would if someone said that stuff in real life. Out and out obscenities and personal abuse will be removed. Posts that are just links to other videos you want to promote will be removed. People who engage in bullying other commenters will be asked to stop if I think they are making commenting here unpleasant for others. If they refuse to stop then they'll be removed from the channel
Um, 3 wars. Bitcoin. Digital currency of countries. Economics government's debt vs interest payments on said debt worldwide. World food production vs worldwide consumption. Muslim integration is a happy ending possible. Battery technology. Nuclear technology. Worldwide wide internet law how far will government's go. Hong Kong before and after ccp treachery. I'm sure a deep dive would be educational for any of these topics. 🍎🍎🍎✨️✨️✨️🤔🤔🤔😜😜😜🐒🐒🐒😎😎😎
The entire world laughs at our 'Net Zero' stupidity. Hilarious if it wasn't so futile, financially ruinous and just plain idiotic. Ditch 'legal duty' and replace with 'aspirational', the idiocy stops.
Russia with a tenth of heavy industry is free from Net Zero pressures. China with 30% is free from real pressure, if it can lock up Muslims and world will still buy from them then they can hide and fudge with a wink any co2 u-turn they plan to pull. Poor world is 20%. So basically only 40% in the west and japan will be trying net zero.
Agree with your sentiments but it depends if you are sincere or not. The dangers of virtue signalling.
@@alanrobertson9790 I’m not into signalling my virtue, I’ve long since run out of that. 😁
Why do you hate 'net zero'? Like others, I see it as a scam to allow profit-making businesses to export their destruction of our world elsewhere - to other parts of the world, to the future, to the poor - rather than face the reality that capitalism is driving global climate catastrophe.
32,000 vulnerable people die in the UK every winter of cold (Source: ONS). Cutting the supply of affordable energy means that number is about to go up. Climate catastrophism is a death cult.
Hands up, who wants it to be colder?
@@Hickalum everyone, who doesn't already use AC in the developed world and the developing world can't seem to buy enough. AC use is expected to be the second-largest source of global electricity demand growth after the industry sector and is The rise in cooling demand will be particularly important in the hotter regions of the world. Today, less than toa third of global households own an air conditioner. In countries such as the United States and Japan, more than 90% of households have air conditioning, compared to just 8% of the 2.8 billion people living in the hottest parts of the world. The issue is particularly sensitive in the fastest-growing nations, with the biggest increase happening in hot countries like India - where the share of AC in peak electricity load could reach 45% in 2050
@@Hickalumyou'd be lying to me if you didn't yourself own or use buildings with an AC unit installed.
@@Hickalum Amusingly, the UK's Office of National Statistics conducted a study to try and estimate the increase in deaths due to the modest increase in temperature in the last decade. They discovered 500,000 fewer people had died, and removed the study.
@@richardlyon67 This is a lie
Salt water comes to my eyes. Cancel the bloody policy it is idiotic. If the judge thinks we can live on net zero, show us how to do it.
global warming 😂😂the gift that keeps on giving 😂😂🎉😂😂
My heart goes out to the people of the UK as we watch from safe ground with interest. Let’s hope you get some sensible people to take control soon, for your own sake.
It's hard to take reports of extreme climate events seriously after the hysterical nonsense from the BBC last northern summer.
Sod the activists, sod the judges, sod the government. The suicidal net-zero farce, which will have zero effect on climate, must be decided by the people
Indeed. We need the end of capitalism and an ecologically-focused revolutionary socialism, not the net zero scam which allows businesses to continue emitting climate-changing gases in the pursuit of profits.
Did judges think we're fools. Then again, maybe a lot of us are.
In 2008 ( Climate Change Act) they the politicians made it legally binding for future parties- Quote - The Act committed the UK to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. However, this target was made more ambitious in 2019 when the UK became the first major economy to commit to a ‘net zero’ target . 🤣🤣🤣 The UN is pulling the strings to get the UK fast-tracked to Third World Status.
Are you sure all of this is unprecedented, when I was in Calcutta back in May 1972, temperature's well over 100F were routine before the monsoon ?
With heat records going only to 1900 in most of world I am sure we've had similar heat waves 100 times since birth of Jesus, but we only have 1 century of records. "Recorded history" for weather basically means 1 healthy person's life time, 100 years. With electric fans we literally can endure for same body stress about 5 C hotter temps, thank the lord, we need to get those by Persian Gulf some solar fans to literally avoid 1m deaths some bad year. We need to prioritize this, this region, they alone might heatstroke out by the millions some mega bad year. I wonder if in the past we had million deaths, like in the year 1400 all the old in Utter Pradesh India died from heat and that's just lost to history. We barely even have historical notice of major plagues so we likely have missed dozens of them and also dozens of extreme 1 week weather events. Most villages never talked much, it took day to go 10 miles and 3 months to go to capital city, so they wouldn't really notice that a heat wave was hitting them all, they would just think their one village had bad luck a year (nor would losing the old affect harvests that much so taxes wouldn't fall). Man the past sucked.
Its only unprecedented if you have the memory of mouse.
Remember when the alarmists used to say there's a difference between weather and climate? No longer apparently.
@@lynndonharnell422 Climate scientists - and clearly you know nothing at all about it - are _still_ saying it. Isn't it time you listened and learned?
@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx you mean reputed figures such as "hockey stick" Mann, "polar bear" Gore and "rainfall" Flannery? Haha
Ah, bureaucrats love their central planning, worked great for the soviets.
Bypassing the will of the people, and use the courts system to iencourage a political ideology...... Gee I see nothing wrong with that... (Sarcasm) 1:05 "It was a good idea at the time" Famous last words....
It's not just a political ideology, sustainability is a radical ideology. Radicalisation is the primary purpose of sustainability.
When a lake or reservoir dries up the increased concentration of salts and minerals is what kills the fish. The same phenomenon is quite common in British rivers that don’t have weirs; like the River Yare in Norfolk, where low pressure and onshore wind force sea water miles up river. The gulls clean up !
Im by ocean in Houston and I don't remember any big fish kill last year. Honestly.
Who is running the country.......the courts or the government?
Governments make laws, judges interpret them but sometimes not what it actually says.
Since Blair introduced the Supreme Court, it’s judges, I’m afraid.
@@jiminycricket9877 Blair is an idiot
As far as I understand it, the court rejected the governments plan for net zero. I can understand this because I have never seen a scientific study of the issue laying out the pros and cons and costs and describing what is achievable and what is not. The fact that doing more than we are will lead to economic and social collapse is something the government and climate activists do not want to admit. We still get 90% of our energy from fossil fuel, and I cannot see any easy solution to that.
Energy is just 7% of gdp. We can afford to blow 3x more on energy without it crippling our economy. People act like energy is 50%, no. The west often has sectors rising and falling in cost, health care is up 2x last 2 decades, policing is up 2x, education is up 2x, housing is up 2x. Just cause theres a lot of yelling about energy doesn't make it more than 7%, so relax. In 1950 with half the current gdp we spent a huge 10% on defense, leaving far less to live on in 1950, and now we spend 3% in US and 2% in UK, leaving all that extra money for other sectors (basically with doubling we are spending 1/6th as a percentage on defense,, leaving so much extra money!!!!!!!!!!!!). To moan about energy rising above 7% to anything less than 20% as "too much to bear" at our current high income shows how when people are uninformed they can panic and claim catastrophe for ever medium problem.. Its HEALTH CARE AND PENSIONS for the wave of seniors coming that will take up 30% of gdp and hurt society more, energy price rise will barely be noticed, but where's all the headlines about seniors and pensions???? Its almost like the seniors and their lobbyists love to distract with fights about energy rising above 7% while health care/pensions keep rising to 30%. We are idiots.
You don't read much, do you?
lol and thank goodness for that silver lining in the cloud of an incompetent government.
These judges are smart. They can simply appeal to authority in order to determine scientific fact.
Yes its a well known fact that majority opinions determine reality. Wiki has a good article on the basis of truth. This basis coupled with a willingness to kill other people to enforce your concepts guarantees that humans will make their, and especially other peoples, lives hell. ‘If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever.’ 1984. People regard their internal realities as more important than the external world, and the internet has exacerbated this.
Great Britain lost the Great part decades ago, covid disaster, net zero a disaster, old farts sitting in the parlament with their yeahs or neighs.
No, it’s still bigger than Brittany
@@northwestcoast But they do have better beer in Brittany.
Hmmm. I'm a tad disappointed, Mallen. You managed to go through that content without mentioning Reform UK. I would have thought it was a bit more important than Johnson being forgetful. Voter ID had to happen, and now the postal votes must be looked at. Stories of 8 adults registered to vote in one address, mustn't be ignored
Reform UK - that extremist bunch of fascists?
South East Asia is in the tropics mate, you're the first to claim raising temperature and deaths because of it in that region.
I never voted for judges.
Using the law to stop co2 emissions was always doubtful. The government can make the law, but it can equally rescind it. Either way, no nation will act decisively on this unless most/all others do too.
The response to climate change should be a political decision - there are a range of options including prevention, adaptation or maybe even do nothing and tolerate the risk. It's not for judges to decide though and certainly not when they consider the policy on single issue terms.
Luckily most judges can be removed by an act of legislature, or by packing the court with new more sensible judges. I've known some judges and they can be idiots, that's the scary thing, they have great trial skills at seeing thru a lie of a criminal but honestly can't do math or tell which expert is smarter.
I don't even think the response to climate change should be political. Here votes for action tend to be disconnected from the outcomes such that if they are bad, there is no responsibility taken. Put another way, if the people making the decisions and setting the rules do not suffer if it all goes to hell, how can the people that suffer from the process trust the people dictating the process?
@@paulsnowthat is a rhetorical question, no?
@@jiminycricket9877 I guess we have no choice in the matter, eh?
The bigger picture is that the UK's contribution to climate change is so small already that doing anything good or bag will make no difference to climate but could destroy society.
Thanks
Laws stay in place unless they are changed. A government can place requirements on successor governments but the successor government can change the legislation. I don't support carbon net zero but I can't complain about the process except if the judge goes beyond (bends) what the legislation states. Where you would get into further difficulties is if you wanted to withdraw from an international treaty and some international body objected. The solution there would be to withdraw from the jurisdiction of that body.
This began in the Netherlands, quickly followed by Spain. The high court ruled that it was a human right to have a livable climate, and based its ruling on the treaty on human rights in Europe that the Netherlands (and Spain) signed. What was groundbreaking was, that the courts ruled that decisions, made by politicians in an international context made on behalf of the Netherlands have rule of law. That is in my view a step too far, although I support the ruling's content for climate action.
In Germany the supreme court went even further. It ruled that current climate poliy is unsufficient to guarantee a good living of people not yet born (by the way, these people having no chance to influence politcs now). With regard to scientific evidence, it ruled, that 100% proof of climate change and its negative consequences is not needed because the mere risk that it can be true is harmful enough. So lawmakers have to take action, even if e.g. 80% of the voting citizens oppose ist. There is no way around except destroying the democratic structure of the country.
Jeepers😢
Freezing cold April in Britain and cold start to May. Stunning silence from the media. Solution. Seek the world for heatwaves and report on them.
That's a small blip in the weather, entirely normal. Clearly you don't understand the first thing about climate change, so why comment on it?
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx So why all the headlines when the temperatures are higher than normal in the summer?
@@aarusty51 There are also headlines when temperatures are lower than expected, or there is any other kind of weather event. That's the media. Journalists are not trained in science and we should not rely on them for accuracy. On the other hand, climate scientists _are_ trained in science. The evidence for climate change and it being caused by burning fossil fuels is simply undeniable - except by those with a vested interest in doing so and those foolish enough to believe them. The energy corporations funded their own climate research in the 1970s that found their products' use to be already causing climate change. What was their response? To spend vast sums publicly downplaying climate change and the effects on it of burning fossil fuels. Even earlier than that: "In Wyoming, I found another speech at the university archives in Laramie - this one from 1965, and from an oil executive himself. That year, at the annual meeting of the American Petroleum Institute, the main organization for the U.S. oil industry, the group’s president, Frank Ikard, mentioning a report called “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment” that had been published just a few days before by President Lyndon Johnson’s team of scientific advisers. “The substance of the report,” Ikard told the industry audience, “is that there is still time to save the world’s peoples from the catastrophic consequences of pollution, but time is running out.” He continued that “One of the most important predictions of the report is that carbon dioxide is being added to the earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at such a rate that by the year 2000 the heat balance will be so modified as possibly to cause marked changes in climate.”" theconversation.com/what-big-oil-knew-about-climate-change-in-its-own-words-170642
@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx any bad climate is inflated any good climate does not exist for the media. Go ahead and pretend that's not true. ✨️✨️✨️🤔🤔🤔😜😜😜🐒🐒🐒😎😎😎
Don't worry, Heathrow will report the hottest July day later this summer.
Famines/drought/heat in India killed millions of people in various years repeatedly in the early 1900s, as google can easily tell you. No big deal. But dozens of deaths this year from heat and drought are clearly breaking records in an India that no longer suffers from famine even in this heat and with a vastly larger population. Note that "ocean temperatures" are not higher (to any degree of confidence) in the current year. Ocean *surface* temperatures have been higher. We can measure those! If the deep ocean currents are actually colder (something we don't really have data on), the oceans could actually be colder. And that might cause massive cooling some centuries in the future when that colder water cycles to the surface (as it will). Further, we don't know why ocean surface temperatures have spiked. We have various theories. But none of them include a spike in CO2 causing the warming. That would imply that CO2 could decline in a year or two to cool the ocean surface. A cooler year in the near future is likely, but not any reduction in CO2 levels. Thus nobody thinks CO2 drives the weather. CO2 levels have been rising at a very steady rate since 1960, as measured by the Keeling Curve. Global temperatures can rise or fall in various years without a direct connection to CO2 levels or human CO2 emissions. As we have seen. History is inconvenient for the CO2 driven climate theory. The historical record is filled with weather disasters that we now deem "local events" no matter how disastrous because we have no records of what the rest of the world was doing. Today, we have a brutal heatwave in Asia, and it is a climate, not local, event even if most of the world isn't in a heatwave. What qualifies as local weather and what qualifies as climate doesn't seem to be an objective classification. It is more about how to defend CO2 as a driver of climate even though it doesn't make much sense. So let's destroy our economies just to be safe.
Yawn.
You guys need an Andrew Jackson. Just be careful what sort of Andrew Jackson you get.
lol 😂😂😂more climate change mass psychosis😂😂😂😂😂
means nothing theyll just change the law
Thanks, Mallen. Great video 👍
Thanks for video. I wonder why vague harm from bit more heat stroke and drought and rain to Britons is unacceptable, but smokestacks are fine putting out 1000 chemicals that measurably cause cancer and heart disease and maybe kill 10% of us a decade early, maybe. Continued poverty in the 3rd world in the 70s almost led to collapse or Soviet domination, so global poverty itself seems a big risk to avoid. I don't get the legal difference, why heat alone is so risky a judge gets to order it stopped at nearly any cost. I guess there are worse follies and priorities, but legal nonsense and undemocratic. Or who knows, pre 1700 we had to obey the King or be imprisoned, now its a judge who also never was poor in his life to know slowing Scottish growth wrecks a lot of lives too. Fun times.
Net zero and a judge 😂😂 what a joke 😑 🙄
Are people blind to the fact that the weather is getting colder ?
It seems you are blind to the evidence that global climate has been warming for decades. Climate is _not_ weather.
Not many people live on the same planet as you.
@@jitteryjet7525 So I guess I need a masters degree in meteorology to read a thermometer.
@@aarusty51 Well I would answer you if I was really bored, but I am not that bored.
Great summary of the week worldwide
Thank you, Mallen
The question about the UK ruling on net zero is what are the courts going to do when the government takes no action? As you say the government will probably delay until after the general election. That means several months of no action; will the court be happy with that?
In the USA a president broke a treaty and started to remove some Native American Indians from the state of georgia. The Supreme Court ruled that illegal. The president literally ignored them and got away with it. Its hard to enforce big things, unless the judge is willing to take over the management and then take all the hassle and blame for small problems. . . . Would a law be ok that said "Government will decrease the number of assaults and rapes by 5% each year" and then women can sue to get a judge to order 9pm curfews and ankle monitors for everyone and hiring half the people as police? . . . Or a law saying "Goverment will spend 10% less each year". . . Asking a judge to force a govt to meet targets seems unwise and undemocratic.
Hahahaha Bojo's own goal is so freakin' satisfying! 😅 We have a discount Trump here in Australia too but thankfully he didn't get very far 😂
Sigh. The heatwave is a real danger for SE Asia and I bet your video gets swamed with PRATT comments from trolls. Extreme temperatures there are a worry because of the high humidity.