Environment

‘Four beef burgers is the same as flying to New York and back! FOUR BURGERS!’ When I arrived at the Extinction Rebellion demo, the first person I met was a woman activist, clad from head to foot in ocean-polluting, synthetic fibres, talking absolute nonsense. And because I’m a beef farmer, I felt I should set her straight. I explained that no, my grass-fed beef does not harm the planet, and asked her what on earth she expected the farmers of Britain to do if they couldn’t keep cows. ‘Ah,’ she says, folding her arms, ‘they should just grow trees.’ Trees are fast becoming the answer to everything. Worried about floods?

Extinction Rebellion’s leaders have arrived in London by fossil-powered train, car and bus – brandishing their mobile phones full of rare Earth metals, to protest against wasteful consumption. Extinction Rebellion is calling for urgent action on climate change. The good news for the government is that there is a radical green policy that would placate the mob and simultaneously tick several policy boxes too. Stripping away the rhetoric, Extinction Rebellion is making two demands – one is that countries commit to immediate radical action to cut carbon well ahead of the 2050 date in the current inter-governmental agreement (not endorsed by the world’s biggest polluter, the United States).  The second demand

The Glorious Twelfth this year, signalling the start of the grouse-shooting season, was overshadowed by a Labour party press release demanding a ‘review’ into driven shooting. Labour’s shadow environment secretary Sue Hayman left people in little doubt as to what she expected this review to conclude. ‘The costs of grouse shooting on our environment and wildlife need to be properly weighed up against the benefit of landowners profiting from shooting parties,’ she said. ‘For too long the Tories have bent the knee to landowners, and it’s our environment and our people who pay the price.’ Needless to say, this is all virtue-signalling nonsense. For a start, the shooting industry imposes

Who wrote ‘Our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country … creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly over-harvesting resources … the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable’? The answer, if media reports are accurate, is Patrick Crusius, the man accused of the El Paso massacre. The words appeared in his testament, entitled (in homage to Al Gore?) The Inconvenient Truth, which he seems to have put online before decreasing the number of people

‘Life pours back in.’ A score of us, listening to Charlie Burrell at the Knepp estate ten days ago, will always remember his words: so palpably true. We could see just what he meant as he took us through his work ‘re-wilding’ the estate in West Sussex where he and his wife, Isabella Tree, live at Knepp Castle. The family have owned and farmed these 3,500 acres for more than two centuries. Sir Charles, 10th Baronet, and Isabella are giving their all to this brave project, for which they have become pioneers, leaders, opinion–formers and evangelists. And the religion is spreading. Everyone in the world of environmentalism talks about re-wilding

Eco opportunity Sir: As a North Sea oil engineer now working on the UK’s ‘green’ energy transition, I believe Ross Clark (‘Greener than thou’, 15 June) raised many valid points but missed out on the major opportunities for the UK economy. Irrespective of what we believe to be the extent of climate change, other key factors are changing rapidly. Who will want to drive their own petrol car when they can summon an autonomous vehicle at the click of an app? And with the global population rising, the total energy demand continues to soar. In the UK, leaps in technology have led to major investment and seen energy generation costs

Even before the government this week announced a legally binding target to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, the Tory leadership contenders were competing fiercely to establish their green credentials. Andrea Leadsom has vowed to declare a ‘climate emergency’. Rory Stewart has upgraded it to a ‘climate cataclysm’ and wants to double the amount of foreign aid spent on climate change. Sajid Javid says he would treat fighting climate change like fighting terrorism. Even Boris Johnson, who once called wind turbines a ‘hideous Venusian invasion’, has leapt on the 100 per cent carbon-free bandwagon, marvelling earlier this week about wind farms and solar panels. While the leadership

We are, of course, in the midst of an air pollution crisis which, like every other threat to our health these days, is ‘worse than smoking’. According to the Royal College of Physicians, everyone in Britain is effectively smoking at least one cigarette a day, rising to many more in the most polluted cities. What’s more, as Bloomberg once put it, London has a ‘Dirty Secret: Pollution Worse than Beijing’s’. And London’s air pollution has ‘been at illegal levels since 2010’, according to the New York Times. Serious though the problem may be — I’ll take Public Health England’s word for it that air pollution contributes to between 28,000 and

In popular mythology Greta Thunberg is a one-girl revolution who has inspired millions of young people into action by being able to see what adults refuse to see. But her promotion as global statesman is really a well-crafted piece of PR. Those on the Left who seek to use climate alarmism to further their war on global capitalism know full well that the likes of Robin Boardman-Pattison – the Bristol University graduate with a private education and fondness for foreign holidays, who stormed out of the Sky News studio when Adam Boulton accused him of being middle class – is a liability to their cause. But allow Thunberg to speak

It’s not like the green blob to keep quiet when there’s a threat to the environment in the offing. Even the smallest hint of a problem is usually enough to work a tree-hugger into a frenzy. So it’s worth taking a look at their decision to keep shtum over the recent appearance of what may be one of the greatest threats to the natural world we have seen. Over the last few weeks, scientists and campaigners alike have been turning their attention to the question of how land can be used to tackle global warming. Their interest was prompted by the appearance of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) special