We Never Talk About the Costs of Not Tackling Climate Change, Says Emma Pinchbeck. Don’t Make Me Laugh – It’s All We Ever Hear About
Last weekend’s episode of BBC One’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg featured an interview with newly-appointed CEO of the U.K.’s Climate Change Committee (CCC), Emma Pinchbeck. Among the softball questions fielded by the country’s chief climate technocrat was one that touched on the increasingly controversial matter of the costs of Net Zero. “I think we talk a lot about the costs of tackling climate change,” claimed Pinchbeck. “What we have rarely talked about… is the costs of not tackling climate change.” This is news to me.
Indeed, it may also well be news to the countless others who have switch off the BBC for its constant political messaging about climate change, among other fashionable causes. Many people from across the political spectrum have begun to find the de facto state broadcaster simply overbearing. And countless programmes and news items attest to the fact the BBC has taken it upon itself to lead the public towards a very particular understanding of climate, based around the idea of a ‘climate crisis’, which will be catastrophic and thus hugely expensive if not confronted. And it has done so in large part by excluding from its transmissions any view that suggests a cost-benefit analysis on the Net Zero agenda ought to have been done before it was advanced.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Wow, that IPCC document linked in the article is simply huge! I wonder if Mr Tucker is involved 😀
Why should there be any comparison? AGW doesn’t exist. CO2 is not the cause of the planet warming. Climate changes certainly, and there is nowt we can do about it. Adapt and survive as mankind always has done. Everyone of these eco wonks should be given a copy of James Delingpole’s latest edition of his book ‘Watermelons’, which has just released. It might enlighten them.
Being an eco wonk necessitates not reading.
Quite. I assumed they might be interested in broadening their knowledge base.
Yes indeed the phrase ”the costs of not tackling climate change.” presupposes that we can tackle climate change. It seems very arrogant to assume that mankind is somehow in charge of the climate and can control how it operates. And it is all the more arrogant that she knows what needs to be done and how to do it as if she is some reverse of King Canute and even the sea and the tides obey her!
This lady makes the statement ” if we don’t tackle climate change internationally, ” but she is not doing that; she is calling for the immisertion of the UK while the rest of the world just carries on regardless.
…presupposes that we
canshould want to tackle climate change.“internationally” – it sounds so much better than globalism.
I have been looking for this book for ages. Has it been reissued?
Yes, just released. Not sure if it’s available on Amazon yet but you can order directly from James Delingpole website.
But spot the contradiction in YouTube; image here – with a good old UN ad built in.
Oh! ‘A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet The global mean surface temperature is widely studied to monitor climate change. A current debate centers around whether there has been a recent (post-1970s) surge/acceleration in the warming rate. Here we investigate whether an acceleration in the warming rate is detectable from a statistical perspective. We use changepoint models, which are statistical techniques specifically designed for identifying structural changes in time series. Four global mean surface temperature records over 1850–2023 are scrutinized within. Our results show limited evidence for a warming surge; in most surface temperature time series, no change in the warming rate beyond the 1970s is detected despite the breaking record temperatures observed in 2023.’ Communications, Earth & Environment Published: 14 October 2024 ‘None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.’ A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming published 13 Jan 2022 (Retracted. The authors disagree with this retraction.) How might an introduction to a ‘parliamentary climate change mitigation measures cost benefit study’ read?… Read more »
You do a lot of good posts on this issue. —-I have been investigating it myself since 2007. I would recommend a book I am currently on called “Climate Scam” by John Chizmadia —cheers
We always always always always hear about the risks of using fossil fuels, but strangely NEVER about the risks of not using them—-And since 85% of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels that risk is very very high.
F”@k the bbc and all its climate zealots!
Sick and tired of hearing this nonsense
Amen to that.
You can tell by just looking at her. Why do these people all look the same??
Imagine being the Chief of the Climate Change Committee and not knowing how unrealistic NZ is. This oddball obviously has no idea how the energy grid works, no clue whatsoever about the immense complexity of it all.
She is totally ignorant of the physics underpinning all of it, blissfully unaware that the things she says are utter nonsense that make her look like an imbecile.
This must be the case – because if not, she would have to be a deliberate liar – a wilful purveyor of misinformation, and I am absolutely certain that just could not be the case.
😀😀😀
Understanding must be above her pay grade!
No doubt the costs of not tackling climate change will be big – bigly big. And that proves it.
Ironically we are seeing the cost of not tackling climate change, because what they are throwing $trillions at has no effect whatsoever on the climate, its just a vanity project driven by lunatics.
Back in the 70/80’s someone noticed that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising (they were/are) and that temperature was also rising (yes, but almost unmeasurably), they confused correlation with causation and have been unable to be honest about that mistake ever since, much better to double down than admit what an arse you’ve been.
All they have to support their insane assertions are meaningless models that they create and control, guff in, guff out! Particularly when you’re only considering one (incorrect and irrelevant) input!
All the Climate Zealots have got is propaganda and 15 years of of BBC brainwashing.
Pinchbeck
Apart from being a village in Lincolnshire near to where I was born, pinchbeck is a cheap substitute for gold.
adjective
Quite.
“But she also claims that “these impacts will get worse over our lifetimes”. How much worse? For this, we can turn to science. According to the IPCC (on page 1,856 AR6 WG1, Table 12.12), even on extreme future emissions and climate sensitivity scenarios (known as “RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5”), it is unlikely that any influence of climate change will be detectable by the year 2100 on river or coastal floods, landslides, droughts, wildfires and cyclones (hurricanes and storm frequency and intensity). This is very far from the story that is used by climate technocrats to demand money from the public.”
This statement contradicts itself…”we can turn to science,” but what follows is talk of scenarios otherwise known as modelling or what most of us would call Bullshit.
It is very clear that both if we don’t tackle climate change internationally, these impacts will get worse over our lifetimes. But also that if we don’t invest in the economy even as it is today, even with the impacts we’re experiencing at this level of global warming, that there will be risks.
Why do they keep putting barely literate imbeciles in positions of power? Is it about diversity and inclusion perhaps?
It’s the logical consequence of a political system where it’s tacitly accepted that politicians tell porkies to lure the electorate into voting for them and then do something else altogether once they are actually in power. Pinchbeck wants money and public support. Because of this, she’s obviously also telling porkies, just like everyone who wants that. And she’s got her job because someone believes she’s particularly good at exactly this.
Is she a lesbian as she has the right haircut?
Maybe, but being a Lesbian doesn’t mean you can’t form proper sentences and use good grammar! The quote is almost meaningless garbage.
It may be just my age, but surely you expect a CEO to be able to produce meaningful sentences.
Or maybe that’s just the point, they have no regards for facts and reality, so why would the English language and grammar be important?
She didn’t really write this. That’s someone else’s transcription of what she said during an interview. I’m not in the mood to watch the interview to determine if the transcription is correct. But assuming it is, it’s IMHO better to apply the so-called principle of charity here and try to interpret her statement in a way which makes sense and then argue against that (as I have tried in another comment).
I take your point, but when did they ever give our side/view any principle of charity consideration?
Our views and opinions have no validity and we are “deplorable” and worse!
I’m past the point of being charitable with these people, they are out to destroy everything worthwhile.
Replying to the last sentence: No, we should not do that. The cost of the actions the CCC (among others) demands on the pretext that they’ll “tackle climate change” (an unprovable claim about what will happen in future) are clear because they have to be paid now. Not taking these actions doesn’t have any cost. Another unprovable claim about the future from the CCC is that if we don’t pay for the actions demanded by the CCC now, we will need to pay more for something else in future.
The only sensible response to that it: Let’s try. Stop hurting ourselves now just because the CCC believes we really ought to. And then see what the future brings, IOW, deal with any problems we may encounter as we encounter them. That’s the only sensible course of action because it means we’ll end up dealing with known issues which will need definite remedies.
In the meantime, let’s impolitely show professional sophists playing shell games like Emma Pinchbeck the door. Tackle this problem now so that we won’t have to endure the cost of not tackling it now in future.
Basic risk analysis suggests you put your resources into addressing high likelihood/high impact ‘risks’. Once you have addressed these you might spend resources on high likelihood/low impact or low likelihood/high impact risks.
Each of these requires an assessment of both likelihood and impact. By all means let’s talk about costs of not tackling climate change; give us your predictions of costs in terms of lives and wealth and well-being and also your predictions of how likely it is to happen. As they used to say in exams: show your working. We can then discuss the cost/benefit as well as the track record of previous predictions.
We have already seen people declining to have children because of ‘climate change’. These never-born children are not lives lost but they can be assigned a monetary value in terms of missing contribution to collective wealth.
Another arts graduate who knows nothing about scientific matters …
I’m pleased to note that the Tweet was from BBC Politics. Nuff said.
I wonder if she can explain why, despite India and China being the greatest ‘polluters’ of CO2, they somehow get a free pass to produce as much as they like of the stuff, because the UN has marked them as ‘Developing Economies’. I also wonder if she could explain why this is ‘an emergency’ when the total annual increase in CO2 output by these two economies far outstrips anything that we can save. Anyone with half a brain might imagine this is actually about de-industrialising the west in the favour of Asia, and getting bloody rich off the process..
Nailed it!
I sincerely hope Nigel’s Reform Party will just “Cut the Gordian Knot” by abolishing the UK Climate Change Committee, along with the whole Net Zero Scam, and put Miss Pinchbeck out of a job.