On Tuesday, Bernie Spofforth released a video that exposes the catastrophic implications of the Climate and Nature (“CAN”) Bill.
This Bill could devastate the UK’s economy, destroy rural communities and jeopardise energy security – all while eroding our rights and freedoms.
The following are some highlights from Spofforth’s video.
Sponsors of the Climate and Nature Bill
The Climate and Nature Bill is being largely ignored by the media, despite being the most important bill in a decade, and its potential impact on freedom and government overreach.
“The bill aligns closely with other International initiatives like the EU’s Nature Restoration Law and the UN’s Agenda 2030,” Spofforth said.
As it nears its second reading in the House of Commons, the Bill has the support of 182 Members of Parliament (“MPs”).
Note from The Exposé: Over time, the Bill has changed names and had various sponsors. Former Green MP Caroline Lucas initially introduced the Bill to the UK House of Commons in September 2020 and has continued to support the bill and co-sponsored it multiple times. When Lucas introduced it, the Bill was titled the ‘Climate and Ecology Bill’. Labour MP Olivia Blake reintroduced the Bill in May 2023.
Labour MP Alex Sobel reintroduced campaign group Zero Hour’s Bill under the new title ‘Climate and Nature Bill’ in May 2024, and was a co-sponsor of the Bill. Liberal Democrat MP Roz Savage, the current sponsor of the Climate and Nature Bill, reintroduced it on 16 October 2024. In her report, Spofforth has focused on the previous sponsor of the Bill, Alex Sobel.
Liberal Democrat MP Wera Hobhouse has been involved with the bill since April 2023. And Liberal Democrat MP Ed Davey, Labour MP Clive Lewis and Alliance MP Stephen Farry, for example, have sponsored the Bill multiple times. You can see a full list of MPs supporting the CAN Bill HERE and view an interactive map of MPs supporting the Bill HERE.
The Bill, reintroduced in May 2024 and sponsored by Labour MP Alex Sobel, claims to save the planet but instead destroys individual freedom and opens the door to massive government overreach, Spofforth said.
Alex Sobel has a strong ideological commitment to environmental issues but lacks business or economic experience in the private sector, making his vision a socialist dream of control and conquest.
The UK already has robust climate laws, including the Climate Change Act of 2008 and the Environment Act of 2021, which are already crippling some farmers and will likely bankrupt the country by 2050, Spofforth warned.
The Climate and Nature Bill lacks clarity and detail, with no dates, economic balance or economic analysis, making it a vague overarching framework that can be easily misused and interpreted in countless ways.
Its use of broad language allows this or future governments to do almost anything they want and justify it in the name of saving the planet, which is a great concern.
Fossil Fuel Ban and Its Consequences
Clause 2[d) of the bill proposes banning fossil fuels, including exploration, extraction, export and import, which could lead to bans or heavy taxes on petrol, diesel and heating fuel, making them unaffordable for millions.
Additionally, the Bill will lead to a ban on importing fuel, making it difficult for people to maintain their petrol or diesel cars, and forcing them to switch to electric vehicles, especially in rural areas where transport is already sparse.
Unrealistic Emission Targets and Personal Carbon Allowances
The bill aims to reduce emissions from UK activities and imports to meet the 1.5 degree Celsius global warming target, which was part of the Paris agreement that became law through Royal Ascent, not through a parliamentary vote.
The Bill’s premise to control economic and social activities within the UK is a “global carbon budget.” Among other controlling measures that the Bill empowers a selected, appointed few to use, the Bill aims to limit the United Kingdom’s “total emissions of carbon dioxide to no more than its proportionate share of the remaining global carbon budget.” In the Bill, the “remaining global carbon budget” means “400 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.” (Where has that figure come from? Is it made up, pulled out of thin air? Has anyone sponsoring and supporting the CAN Bill even bothered to check where that figure comes from? Or, are they simply making decisions based on campaign mantras and ideologies?)
To achieve this target, personal carbon allowances may be introduced, which would track people’s energy use, travel and food choices through digital IDs and smart meters, and penalise those who exceed their quota.
The wealthy, including those in the public sector, may be able to afford to live without these restrictions, while ordinary people would face penalties and restrictions.
Ecosystem Restoration and Land Grabs
The bill also aims to restore ecosystems and prioritise conservation, which could lead to compulsory land purchasing for rewilding projects, solar farms and other initiatives, potentially forcing farmers and rural residents to lose their homes and livelihoods.
This could lead to rural areas becoming emptier and more food insecure, forcing families into overcrowded urban centres, which aligns with the international vision of C40 Cities and Agenda 2030.
Offsetting Impact and Widening Inequality
The bill’s offsetting impact provision could allow the wealthy to buy their way out of restrictions through carbon offsets, while the rest of the population would have to ration energy and potentially sell their excess carbon quota to richer people.
This could also lead to taxes on everyday consumer items, widening the gap between the wealthy and ordinary people.
No comments:
Post a Comment