Green industrial revolution, or Great Leap Backward?

Green industrial revolution, or Great Leap Backward?

By Neil Lock

Prologue: The decay of politics

For several decades now, there has been a continual decline in the quality of the political atmosphere, in the UK and elsewhere. In the UK, I think this probably dates back to the 1970s and Old Labour; but the Tories and New Labour have both actively helped it along. Government has lost respect for the people it is supposed to serve. It treats us, at best, as if we were naughty children. It takes no account of what we actually are: thinking, feeling human beings, who need freedom and justice in order to live our lives to the full. In consequence, many people have begun to lose confidence in politics and government, no matter which party is in power. And among such people there is a, slowly but inexorably, mounting sense of exasperation with the political establishment and those in it. The Brexit referendum vote in 2016, and the meteoric rise of the Brexit Party in the first half of 2019, were signs of this.

Meanwhile, the political class and their cohorts (such as bureaucrats, academe, media, big-company bosses) have steadily become more and more authoritarian, arrogant, dishonest, deceitful, untrustworthy, grasping, irresponsible, evasive of accountability, hypocritical, hysterical, and lacking in concern for us “little people.” It is as if they have formed themselves into a giant, psychopathic, criminal gang; and we are their chosen victims.

You can see this in their erection of millions of cameras to spy on us. In their tracking of our Internet and phone usage. In their obvious desire to use any “crisis” they can drum up, such as the COVID epidemic, to take away or restrict our liberties. But nowhere is it more clearly reflected than by their conduct on environmental issues, such as the matter often called “climate change” or, alternatively, “global warming,” “climate crisis” or “climate emergency.” And, in particular, by the UK government’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution [[1]], published in November 2020. Continue reading

An Open Letter to my MP about Climate Change and De-Carbonizing Transport

I have just sent an e-mail to my Member of Parliament (Jeremy Hunt) regarding the submission I made two weeks ago in response to the UK government’s consultation on “de-carbonizing transport”.

Here is the covering e-mail, which also draws his attention to a long, complex article I have written on lockdown actions taken against the COVID-19 virus, and how appropriate and effective they have been.

Dear Mr Hunt,

Please find attached, for your consideration as my MP, two documents on the subject of climate change and the UK government’s plans to “de-carbonize” transport. The first is a two-page letter, with a number of questions on these matters, whose relevance I very much hope you will appreciate. The second is a 56-page PDF, which I submitted two weeks ago as my response to the recent government “consultation” on these matters.

While writing, I would also like to take the opportunity to give you a link to an article I have recently written and published on the subject of lockdowns against the COVID-19 virus. The article is here:

This is, of course, an area in which as a former health secretary you have almost unrivalled expertise. My researches have led me towards the conclusion that the lockdowns, as implemented in the UK (and many other countries), have been way over the top compared to what was actually necessary. I realize you might personally disagree; but I am sure you will be aware that the longer all this stuff goes on, the less inclined ordinary people will be to give the government the benefit of the doubt.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Lock

And here is the two-page letter, with the questions:

<Address redacted>

Jeremy Hunt MP

(South West Surrey)

House of Commons





13 August 2020


Dear Mr Hunt


Climate Change and De-Carbonizing Transport


Twelve years ago, on July 14th, 2008, I wrote you a nine-page letter urging you find out the facts regarding climate change. And, having done so, to take the strongest possible stand against the UK’s Climate Change Bill. You never bothered even to acknowledge my letter, let alone reply to it. Even though I prompted you about it when you phoned me to solicit my vote the day before the 2010 election. I was, to say the least, disappointed in you.

Now, twelve years later, here we are again. But things have moved on, since you voted for that dreadful bill on that snowy night in October 2008.

Two weeks ago, I submitted a response to the government’s recent consultation on “de-carbonizing transport.” It is a 56-page PDF, and I include it in the attachments to my e-mail. I would ask you please, Mr Hunt, to read what I have to say, and to give full consideration to it. You are, after all, my one and only representative in a parliament, many of whose acts over the last year and more I consider to have gone well beyond the bounds of reasonable behaviour. By its actions the parliament has, as far as I am concerned, brought itself into disrepute. And as a result, I have now lost all respect for it.

I would like to know your views on some of the issues I raise in my document. But I won’t expect you to dig into any of the scientific detail. Your liberal-arts education, and your many years of experience with government bureaucracy, should be sufficient for you to be able to address my questions.

  1. Do you agree with the quote from Bertrand Russell, with which I begin my Preface?
  2. Would you agree that government exists to serve the people, not to rule over them against their interests?
  3. Do you agree with me when I say: “you should expect government always to be reasonable towards the people it governs?”
  4. Do you agree with me when I say that MPs: “ought always to support the interests of the people they represent against encroachment by other political interests. For example, MPs in rural areas ought to champion the car as the best means of transport for people in their areas, even when it is pooh-poohed and threatened by the big-city slickers.”
  5. Would you agree that government, and those whom it funds, should always behave with honesty, integrity and good faith towards the public?
  6. Would you agree that government must never make costly commitments on behalf of the governed without rigorous justification?
  7. Would you agree that, in a case such as the allegations that human emissions of carbon dioxide are leading to catastrophic climate change, the burden of proof should always be on the accusers to substantiate their case beyond reasonable doubt?
  8. Would you agree that the UK Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment’s 2002 re-formulation of the precautionary principle, which I link to from my document as reference [5], was dishonest and done in bad faith? Would you agree that it had the effect, in matters such as the “climate change” allegations, of negating the presumption of innocence, inverting the burden of proof, and requiring the accused to prove a negative?
  9. Do you think that the BBC likening allowing climate change skeptics to speak to “letting someone deny last week’s football scores” violated their own guidelines on impartiality?
  10. Would you agree that the UK government’s 2009 abandonment of the social cost approach to valuing carbon dioxide emissions when considering policies, which I link to from my document as reference [6], was dishonest and done in bad faith?
  11. Do you think that the UK government’s 2010 “Climategate” inquiries were entirely honest and done in good faith?
  12. Would you agree that Extinction Rebellion is an extremist organization, and should never have been allowed to influence UK government policy?
  13. Do you think that the Committee for Climate Change is an independent, impartial body?
  14. Do you agree with me that setting arbitrary collective targets and limits on what people may do, for example “carbon budgets,” is unjust and tyrannical?
  15. Do you think that the UK government’s plans for implementing “zero carbon,” their costs, and the consequences to the people affected by them, have been fully thought through?
  16. Would you agree that the arrogant tone of the “setting the challenge” document, in particular in its use of words and phrases like “interventions,” “behaviour change” and “accelerating modal shift,” is inappropriate to the way in which a democratic government ought to treat its people?
  17. Would you agree with me when I say: “The UK government must commission a thorough, independent, scrupulously honest, unbiased audit of its own conduct, and the conduct of those it funded, in environmental matters over the period since 1970?”
  18. And finally, if you had known in 2008 that the policies resulting from the climate change agenda would eventually have such large negative consequences for the standard and quality of living of your constituents, would you have voted for the climate change bill?

I have put my case, as fully and eloquently as I can, in my PDF document. I hope that you will feel able to take Bertrand Russell’s sage advice, and seek the facts of the matter – just as I asked you to, twelve years ago. When you have done so, I think you will find that most, if not all, of my concerns on this matter are justified. What you decide to do then will, of course, be up to you.

Yours sincerely




Neil Lock

P.S. I will publish this letter as “An Open Letter to my MP about Climate Change and De-Carbonizing Transport” on my own small blog, and on another blog where I am an author. I will publish your reply on my own blog when I receive it.

Enclosure: “Response to Consultation on ‘De-Carbonizing Transport’ in the UK,” July 31st, 2020.

My response to the government consultation on “De-carbonizing Transport”

Last Friday, I sent in a just-in-time response to the UK government’s “consultation” on how to “de-carbonize transport.” Or, more simply put, to ban our cars – as quickly as they possibly can.

My response is a 56-page PDF. There’s a lot of detail in there, and some quite strong ideas. So I thought the best way would be simply to put it up on the Internet, and link to it. WordPress, though, had other ideas. It wouldn’t let me link to it, without actually embedding it. So, here it is:

Click to access respcon-200731.pdf


The Overpopulation Myth

The Overpopulation Myth

By Duncan Whitmore

In addition to the alleged problem of human induced climate change, the leftist/elitist/environmentalist/anti-human monologue is beginning to make increasingly explicit noises about the equally mythical problem of overpopulation. “Too many people” is often blamed on a number of apparent calamities, right from the shortage of particular (usually “essential”) resources all the way up to the outright poverty of entire continents, not to mention the effect of population growth upon the supposed “climate emergency” itself. Although few states have enacted explicit policies in order to stop their citizenry from procreating, factoids such as the suggestion that a dozen earths would be needed for every single human to enjoy a Western lifestyle attempt to create an unwarranted degree of hysteria. Of course, the fact that the notion of population control jars with the liberal attitude towards open borders (which can lead to the very real problem of local overpopulation), and that those calling for population reduction never seem willing to offer their own necks for the chopping block are both challenges that are seldom raised. Indeed, in response to the proclamation of Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Wokeness, that they will have only two children in order to “save the planet”, one is tempted to ask why they are bothering to breed at all if the problem is really that serious. Very few of the rest of us, no doubt, would have a great deal of concern if the liberal-left refused to pass its genes on to future generations.

As we shall see here, overpopulation can never be a serious or long lasting issue when there is a society distinguished by free market capitalism. It does, however, have the potential to be a serious problem when a society is blighted by state interference (although the primary effects are still likely to be local rather than general). Continue reading



By Duncan Whitmore

The pervasive issue of human-induced climate change has been hotting up again lately. The recent birth of “Extinction Rebellion”, which pursues the strategy of civil disobedience and economic disruption in order to force governments to “act” on climate change, as well as the creation of a mascot in the form of teenage activist Greta Thunberg, has helped to drive the once fledgling issue back to the forefront of political attention. A “Global Climate Strike” held on September 20th saw children – many of whom have been terrified into the belief that their world is about incinerate – allowed to take the day off from school in order to participate (an unlikely occurrence had they wished to protest against, say, mass immigration). Although Britain has emerged from what has actually been a fairly standard summer in terms of temperature, a handful of record breaking days helped to push climate fear to a high of 85% of the UK population, according to a recent poll.

Fortunately, the latest antics of “Extinction Rebellion” – which have included targeting ordinary East London commuters on their way to work – betray one of the reasons why Murray Rothbard split from his alliance with the left in the early 1970s: that you don’t win any support by attacking, with violent disruption, the very people whose hearts and minds you are trying to convert.1 The fact that these incidents targeted the London Underground and Docklands Light Railway only added to their irredeemable stupidity given that most people accept electrified public transport as a sufficiently green alternative to cars. Nevertheless, the issue itself is a lingering one and government policies committed to tackling climate change remain prominent. Continue reading

The backstory behind the war on cars in the UK

On May 20th, 2019, I gave a talk to the Libertarian Alliance about the damaging political policies being imposed on car drivers in the UK, and the history behind them. Normally, these talks are recorded on video. But on this occasion, an unfortunate combination of circumstances prevented a recording. As this subject is a topical one – and becoming more so by the day – I thought it appropriate to create a “transcript” of the talk, re-constructed from my notes.


On April 8th, 2019, London mayor Sadiq Khan’s Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) went live in the Congestion Charge area in central London. It now costs the driver £12.50 a day, on top of the congestion charge, to drive in this zone a diesel car built before September 2015, or a petrol car built before 2006. This is an outrageous amount; and it also has to be paid at week-ends! This scheme is planned to be extended to all of the area inside North and South Circular Roads in October 2021. And after that, who knows?

Beyond this, there is talk of charging drivers of diesel cars to enter any of 35 or so cities around the UK. Some cities, like Southampton, have decided not to do this. Others, like Birmingham, are pressing on. Meanwhile, on May 9th the Times began a campaign claiming that “air pollution on the streets is poisoning 2.6 million schoolchildren,” and that this is due to “clogged roads”.

And yet, a recent (May 2nd) Sky News poll showed that more than 50 per cent of a random sample of people in the UK were “unwilling to significantly reduce the amount they drive, fly and eat meat,” either to combat climate change or to protect the environment in a more general sense. This is evidence of a huge disconnect between the political classes and the people!

There is a long backstory behind all this, which not many people seem to be aware of. In the last two years, I’ve managed to pull a lot of this backstory together. So, tonight I’ll bring it out into the open for you. In the process, I’ll identify what I call the Ten Deadly Dishonesties. These are attitudes and ploys that anti-car and other green campaigners have used, many of them more than once, in the course of their political machinations. Continue reading