Tory MP Esther McVey Thinks Net Zero is a “Dud” Having Spent Years Inflicting it On the British Public

A person identifying as the Conservative MP Esther McVey told Mike Graham on his morning Talk show earlier this week that “Net Zero was a dud”. Surely this could not have been the Esther McVey who is a leading light in the Conservative Environment Network (CEN), a Green Blob-funded activist group promoting a no ifs, no buts 2050 Net Zero policy. This calls for “accelerating” the transition away from fossil fuels in the power, transport and heating sectors in order to deliver “lower, more stable bills for consumers and greater energy security”. Perhaps Talk’s strict vetting process to weed out imposters failed on this one occasion, or maybe McVey is just demonstrating how fluid opinions can be in the hands of a modern politician. Readers can decide after considering the thoughts of Groucho Marx: “Those are my principles and if you don’t like them, well I have others.”

Current events are making a mockery of every UK politician in the ‘Uniparty’ that supported the crazy hard Left New Zero fantasy over the last 20 years. The electricity blackout across Iberia last Monday, which experts have blamed on unreliable wind and solar energy, sent shock waves through the political class. The problem of fluctuating frequency gets worse the more renewable power is loaded onto the system and will not go away. Almost certain blackouts are on the way for any grid that follows the potentially catastrophic renewable policy. Now Conservative politicians like McVey are running for the hills since they suspect, rightly, that any UK blackouts will be blamed on them.

The wily politician Nigel Farage from Reform has already set the political trap by popularising the term Net Stupid Zero. McVey is suddenly speaking of the poverty that Net Zero will cause, shamelessly noting that for the Left the policy was one of “hope over reality”. It is as if McVey never sat in Cabinets run by Net Zero fanatics Theresa May and Boris Johnson, and hasn’t spent the last decade campaigning and voting for the whole ghastly collectivist project. Quite how she kept a straight face on Graham’s show and claimed the Right including herself was always sceptical about Net Zero and the costs it imposed on people will forever remain a mystery. She is still part of a Green Blob activist group that thinks, like the Mad Miliband, that Net Zero will somehow lower bills and provide a de-industrialised UK with energy security.

What will Sir Christopher Hohn, a significant funder of CEN and a past paymaster of Extinction Rebellion, think of McVey’s statement that after the “disaster” in Spain and Portugal the best thing that Sir Keir Starmer can do is sack Ed Miliband and “ditch Net Zero”? And what are we to make of McVey’s remarks, given CEN’s claim that it is a forum for conservatives in the UK and around the world who support Net Zero. It can only be concluded that CEN’s claim shows the eternal truth that a week is a long time in politics.

It was all so different a year ago. The Conservatives were still in power and a third of the Parliamentary party could indulge their luxury virtue signalling and sign up for the CEN. The billionaire-funded operation was said to support a network of “Net Zero champions” inside Parliament, “to make the positive case that Net Zero is an economic opportunity as well as a moral responsibility”. Running all this moral flim-flam was Ben Goldsmith, one of five trustees of Hohn’s fund, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation. Another major provider of CEN cash is the Clean Air Fund, also heavily supported by Hohn. Financial support also came – and still does – from Gower Street, whose largess also runs in the direction of Extinction Rebellion operations. Funding is provided for XR old hands Gail Bradbrook and Stuart Basden to help “make good on the potential of Extinction Rebellion”. Meanwhile, Gower also provides cash for the World Environment Crimes Unit, which is building a database on individuals “holding back action on climate in the UK”. It must be hoped that the talkative McVey is not about to be added to its list.

These days the CEN seems to have fallen on harder times. Just 50 Conservative MP are signed up, and perhaps make that 49 in future given McVey’s recent remarks. But that is still a significant percentage of the current Conservative party whose leadership is trying to row back on the 2050 Net Zero commitment. Two names stand out in the list showing just how difficult it will be for the party to present a credible line on Net Zero going forward. Both Simon Hoare and Sir Roger Gale spoke in favour of the recent Climate and Nature Bill, a private member’s legislative attempt that thankfully failed to make progress. This horror bill would have reduced hydrocarbon use in the UK, both domestic and imported, to just 10% in less than a decade. Sir Roger Gale suggested it had a “few flaws”, which was an interesting way to describe almost certain economic and societal collapse. Around 200 MPs supported this destructive bill including all the Greens and LibDems, indicating that reality in large parts of the British House of Commons is still a work in progress.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

Subscribe
Notify of

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.

31 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
NeilofWatford
11 months ago

Never in the field of human conflict has so much been blamed on a naturally occurring, necessary gas that comprises 0.04% of our atmosphere.
With apologies to Churchill …

MajorMajor
MajorMajor
11 months ago

And this is exactly why the party self-identifying as “conservative” have lost all credibility.
If there is a solid conservative voter, it would be me. Family, private property rights, strong borders, nation state, free speech, small state, low taxation. I could continue, but I don’t think I need to say more to people on this forum.
And I can’t vote for the “conservatives”.
Because there has not been a single example during their 14 year tenure when they did not enthusiastically embrace each and every woke idea that they encountered.
Mass migration? Tick.
Net zero? Tick.
Drag queens in schools? Tick.
Hate crime legislation? Tick.
Lockdowns? Tick.
Censorship? Tick.
So, as far as I’m concerned, they can say whatever they like. I just don’t care and I don’t believe them. They lied day and night, they promised things they never even meant to do.
“From your fruits you will know them.” Indeed. Look at broken Britain – financially, economically, mentally, psychologically and spiritually broken and ask: who was in charge here? What have they done?
So whether Kemi or whoever else, what difference does it mean? Who are their supporters, apart from the terminally gullible? Who believes anything they say?

RSB
RSB
11 months ago
Reply to  MajorMajor

Exactly how I feel

allanplaskett
allanplaskett
11 months ago
Reply to  RSB

I also.

allanplaskett
allanplaskett
11 months ago
Reply to  allanplaskett

I will never vote conservative again. for all and exactly the reasons major2 gives above.

Marcus Aurelius knew
11 months ago
Reply to  MajorMajor

Also. I would say that I’ll never vote for her party ever again, but I have emigrated, so that’s that. Sick of the lot of them.

JXB
JXB
11 months ago
Reply to  MajorMajor

If there is a solid conservative voter, it would be me. Family, private property rights, strong borders, nation state, free speech, small state, low taxation.”

So… Far Right, you are, literally Hitler.

Epi
Epi
11 months ago
Reply to  JXB

Couldn’t agree more.

Gladwina
Gladwina
11 months ago
Reply to  MajorMajor

Superbly put!!

Myra
11 months ago
Reply to  MajorMajor

Fully agree!

Epi
Epi
11 months ago
Reply to  MajorMajor

Well said a plague on all their houses.

Art Simtotic
11 months ago

Guilty as charged, Ms McVey – along with the rest of the parliamentary lemmings, supported Mrs Maybee’s backing Net Zero to the hilt in 2019.

Meanwhile on the morning after the Iberian power fiasco, the Science Media Centre (mouthpiece of the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee, nowadays operating out of the Wellcome Collection) published its commentary, “Expert reaction to power outages across Spain and Portugal…

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-power-outages-across-spain-and-portugal/

…Fiasco conveniently attributed to “induced atmospheric vibration” by no less than 9 cited academicians, only one of whom mentioned the issue of a power grid unbalanced by over-reliance on wind and solar energy.

Ever since the 2008 Climate Claptrap Act passed by an overwhelming majority of MP’s, the nation has been on the receiving end of parliamentary energy-treason. Off with their heads.

Norfolk-Sceptic
Norfolk-Sceptic
11 months ago
Reply to  Art Simtotic

“Over-Reliance On Renewables Behind Catastrophic Blackouts in Spain
“Spain’s national grid operator, Red Eléctrica, revealed that the immediate cause of the blackout was a “very strong oscillation in the electrical network” that forced Spain’s grid to disconnect from the broader European system, leading to the collapse of the Iberian Peninsula’s power supply at 12:38 p.m.”
https://stephenheins.substack.com/p/headline-over-reliance-on-renewables

A ‘very strong oscillation in the electrical network’ would be expected to have been caused by an electromagnetic source, likely found in the upper atmosphere, and driven by output from the Sun. This is getting more likely as the Earth’s magnetic field has been weakening for many decades.

This, occurring while the national grids are so ‘delicately balanced’, is cause for concern.

RichardTechnik
RichardTechnik
11 months ago

“very strong oscillation in the electrical network”. For sure. A frequency and voltage fluctuation- each out of phase with each other is the likely response to a step-change in such an interconnected system of generation and load. The oscillation used to be heavily damped by high inertia rotating machines -now the preponderance of I inverters offer nothing in inertia. The idea that some celestial electromagnetic influence is to blame is simply political avoidance of the engineered reality that over reliance on renewables has created. Electromagnetic outside influence would have to involve rapidly oscillating fields or conductors or both. From the vagueness of the comments of the electrical engineering academics in the link they don’t believe it either.

MajorMajor
MajorMajor
11 months ago
Reply to  RichardTechnik

Maybe there were strong oscillations in the amount of sunshine.
One minute it was bright, then a cloud came over.
Oops, we didn’t plan for that… said the nutters.

Rose Madder
11 months ago

Certainly a risk for the future, but spaceweather.com says it was calm that day.

7941MHKB
7941MHKB
11 months ago

Don’t believe the predictable GangGreen mumbo Jumbo.
Genuine energy experts have been predicting grid instability caused by “renewable” (actually – very unreliable , weather dependent energy) for decades. It was recommended over twenty years ago that adding more than 10% ruinables to the grid would risk instability. That risk escalates as ruinables increase. And Spain was bragging a fortnight ago that, for a brief period on a weekday, ruinable electricity was providing 100% of demand. A strange coincidence?
I think not.

Hardliner
11 months ago

Spaceweather.com said there was no significant solar activity that day …

transmissionofflame
11 months ago

Did Mike Graham ask her to explain her change of mind?

Gezza England
Gezza England
11 months ago

What a shame Mike Graham did not know she was a member of Tory Green Fascism. How great it would have been to spring that on her at the end. She has been one of the better Tories but it just goes to show how untrustworthy they are. Miriam Cates is another as I was appalled that she saw nothing wrong with Rachel from Accounts lying about her lack of experience to hold the second highest post in the government.

DiscoveredJoys
DiscoveredJoys
11 months ago

There’s an ongoing argument in media/academia/NGOs ( MANGOs) about populism and polarisation. I’d argue that as long as politicians seize 100% on an idea, to the exclusion of all else, they are the cause, not the victims, of polarisation.

If you look up Pareto’s Principle in Wikipedia:

The Pareto principle or “80:20 rule” stating that 80% of outcomes are due to 20% of causes was named in honour of Pareto… Empirical observation has shown that this 80:20 distribution fits a wide range of cases, including natural phenomena and human activities.

…then perhaps 100% Net Zero is insanely ambitious and damaging, although you could perhaps realise 80% of the benefits with the best 20% of the efforts. And also avoid polarising and impoverishing the population too.

Marcus Aurelius knew
11 months ago

Too late.

Sees her party and possibly her career in their death throes, and now she says it.

A pox on all their houses.

stewart
11 months ago

God bless the Spainsh for showing everyone what a world of “renewable” energy looks like.

I reckon that in one day of blackout mayhem they have advanced the fight against NetZero insanity by several years.

Cotfordtags
11 months ago

Every public meeting I attend, every group of people I meet, I reference Christopher Hohn and how he is single handedly running the green net zero campaign, not just through green organisations but also the Tories. Nobody I speak to has heard of him and all assume the green movement is a grass root organisation. None are aware of the journalist training programme he funds. How do we get this malign influence into public awareness and shut him down?

Sforzesca
Sforzesca
11 months ago

Not that I take much interest in politicians but it seems to me that she’s the only MP to have seen the light and to have been principled enough as regards both Covid/”vaccine” Clown World and Net Zero.
So immense credit to her for that.
FWIW I never did much research about net zero – until I had my eyes opened regarding the covid pandemic – which made me realise that the same players were/are involved.

What I find interesting is how common it is for antivaxxers to also be Climate Change Deniers, anti Ukraine and ultimately dreaded Extreme Right Wing Fascist supporters.

JXB
JXB
11 months ago

Some might say, the sinner who repenteth, others opportunist!

wryobserver
wryobserver
11 months ago

There’s nothing wrong with changing your mind if the evidence demands it. Had Ms McVey begun by saying just that it might have made her volte face seem more honest.

A few years back our guide in Sri Lanka would presage his opinions by saying “When I become Prime Minister I would…”. When I become Prime Minister I would admit that Net Zero was an expensive, unjustifiable mistake and abandon it. It’s a pity that politicians cannot bring themselves to do this in one fell swoop, but have to prevaricate, kicking and screaming. But we do seem to be getting there, slow as it is.

Hardliner
11 months ago

McVey’s education and work experience have little or no relevance to the subjects of energy and technology. She probably gets her views on these subjects from the Daily Mail, with all the deep knowledge and commitment that implies. “Flip, flop, flip, flop…what makes me look good, what can we sell to voters etc etc”
Her greatest contribution could be as a mouthpiece, spreading the anti-Net Zero word further and wider until the penny finally drops under its own weight…

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
11 months ago

If a third of the Conservative parliamentary party supported the CEN a year ago, and now 50 out of 121 MPs do, then the CEN has increased its penetration of the party not reduced it.

Reducing it would be having fewer than 40. The rot is even deeper than it was before.

Norfolk-Sceptic
Norfolk-Sceptic
11 months ago

On an individual basis, I can understand how people can change their mind when new (to them) evidence is presented. How else will the public come to a different conclusion on the Climate Fiasco?

What is so unforgivable is the Conservative Party’s intransigence to hear dissenting voices. (Labour have always had more of a herd instinct.)There were, and still are, plenty of different information sources from which to choose. That is why the Legacy Parties need to be removed from any position of power or influence.

Yes, these ‘different information sources’ need to be considered, dissected, and credible policies formulated, tested and eventually prototyped. This is standard practice for any Engineering project of any size, yet, because the Legacy Parties have no Engineers or Natural Scientists with sufficient Engineering awareness in positions of influence, the infestation of Arts, Humanities and Social Science graduates in Whitehall and Westminster determine policy. Even when this problem is corrected, Business skills are needed from the start to ensure success. Bolting on expertise or knowledge doesn’t work: just look at the results of government over that last 25 years to see how dismal the results have been.

EUbrainwashing
11 months ago

With my political convictions I would be totally unelectable. It would take a vast unpeeling of the propaganda programming everyone is subjected to for a voter to understand.
A sincerer man who won office would have to have the mind of an imbecile to get a majority, of imbeciles, to vote for him.
So the only way to win in this game is to promise what people want to hear and do only what you can if you win.