This lecture contains a lot of interesting statistics about how European nations are performing in respect of reducing CO2 emissions and their dependence on Russian gas. It reveals that most nations are failing to keep CO2 emissions from increasing and that they are becoming increasingly uncompetitive.
Wednesday 31 July 2019
Tuesday 30 July 2019
UK ELECTRICITY BILLS COULD DOUBLE TO BAIL OUT WIND FARMS
This piece explains this alarming prospect. It is likely to be a glimpse into the future as we embark on a massive wind turbine programme in order to fulfil the government's fantasy of being "carbon neutral" by 2050.
Monday 29 July 2019
AIR TRAVEL IS "IRRESPONSIBLY CHEAP" SAY GERMAN COMMUNISTS
This article is a warning to us all that unless we stand up for our standard of living we could easily be governed by these latter day Cromwellian hard liners. We used to be ruled by religious zealots, many still are, but the new religion of Climatology is waiting in the wings fanned on by the eco-extremists.
Sunday 28 July 2019
CHINA STILL EXPANDING COAL CAPACITY
This article confirms what we already know - that China has no intention of reducing CO2 emissions in the near future. Quite the opposite.
Saturday 27 July 2019
GREENS COLLAPSING GERMAN WIND INDUSTRY
Collapse Of Wind Power Threatens Germany's Green Energy Transition Die Welt, 26 July 2019
Hardly any new wind turbines were built in Germany in the first half of the year. Turbine makers call it a “punch in the gut of the green energy transition” and blame environmentalists.
The expansion of wind power in the first half of this year collapsed to its lowest level since the introduction of the Renewable Energy Act (EEG) in 2000. All in all, just 35 wind turbines were build with an output of 231 megawatts. “This corresponds to a decline of 82 percent compared to the already weak period of the previous year”, according to the German Wind Energy Association (BWE) in Berlin.
“This makes one nearly speechless,” said Matthias Zelinger at the presentation of the data. The managing director of the Power Systems division of the German Engineering Federation (VDMA) spoke of a “blow to the guts of the energy turnaround”. This actual development doesn’t match “at all to the current climate protection debate”.
“On the one hand the Federal Government speaks of its achievement of ambitious renewable expansion and climate protection goals for the years 2030 and 2050. On the other hand, the perspective is missing,” said Hermann Albers, President of the German Wind Energy Association (BWE): “The discrepancy between claim and reality is growing.”
The federal government wants to increase the share of renewable energy in the electricity supply from around 40 today to at least 65 percent in 2030. But when in 2021 thousands of wind turbines come to the end of the 20-year subsidy period of the Renewable Energy Act, more wind turbines will be demolished on balance than new ones will be added, the wind industry fears. The government’s green energy and probably also its climate targets would fail.
The reasons for the slump in new construction figures are manifold. Unlike in the past too low subsidies for wind power is not the cause this time. “It’s not about the money,” said Albers: “The energy transition is being slowed down on a small scale.”
The most important cause lies in the legal resistance of wildlife and forest conservationists fighting new wind farms. The BWE President referred to an industry survey of the onshore wind agency. According to its findings, more than 70 percent of the legal objections are based on species conservation, especially the threat to endangered bird species and bats. Wind power president Albers called many complaints unfounded. He claims that the population of the red kite raptors has actually increased in parallel with the expansion of wind power. However, the nature conservation federation of Germany would not support this claim when asked by Die WELT.
In addition to species protection, it is primarily conflicts with noise protection that are leading to legal objections against wind power projects. They are responsible for 17 per cent of legal cases. Monument protection are behind six percent of lawsuits.
By introducing a market-based tendering model, the federal government forced the wind power industry to cut costs and make cut-throat calculations. On top of the growing economic risk comes now the risk of legal action. Both together scare off more and more potential investors. Since the federal government also removed some problematic privileges for so-called community wind farms, there are no longer enough participants for the public auction rounds. Of the more than 1350 megawatts of wind power projects tendered this year, only 746 megawatts could be slated for a project.
Ever since local resident protests in many state parliaments have led to critical discussions about a minimum distance to residential development, the licensing authorities have been acting much more cautiously than before, the wind power lobby criticises. According to BWE figures, 11,000 megawatts of wind energy capacity are currently stuck in the permit backlog.
“Military concerns and FM radio beacons also constituted significant approval barriers”. Altogether 4790 megawatts of wind power are blocked here, of which alone 2370 megawatts are blocked by the distance control. Wind power projects would have to keep a distance of 10 to 15 kilometers in Germany to the stations that are used for navigation in aviation, Albers claimed: Some neighboring states were content with half this distance.
Translation GWPF
Full story
Hardly any new wind turbines were built in Germany in the first half of the year. Turbine makers call it a “punch in the gut of the green energy transition” and blame environmentalists.
The expansion of wind power in the first half of this year collapsed to its lowest level since the introduction of the Renewable Energy Act (EEG) in 2000. All in all, just 35 wind turbines were build with an output of 231 megawatts. “This corresponds to a decline of 82 percent compared to the already weak period of the previous year”, according to the German Wind Energy Association (BWE) in Berlin.
“This makes one nearly speechless,” said Matthias Zelinger at the presentation of the data. The managing director of the Power Systems division of the German Engineering Federation (VDMA) spoke of a “blow to the guts of the energy turnaround”. This actual development doesn’t match “at all to the current climate protection debate”.
“On the one hand the Federal Government speaks of its achievement of ambitious renewable expansion and climate protection goals for the years 2030 and 2050. On the other hand, the perspective is missing,” said Hermann Albers, President of the German Wind Energy Association (BWE): “The discrepancy between claim and reality is growing.”
The federal government wants to increase the share of renewable energy in the electricity supply from around 40 today to at least 65 percent in 2030. But when in 2021 thousands of wind turbines come to the end of the 20-year subsidy period of the Renewable Energy Act, more wind turbines will be demolished on balance than new ones will be added, the wind industry fears. The government’s green energy and probably also its climate targets would fail.
The reasons for the slump in new construction figures are manifold. Unlike in the past too low subsidies for wind power is not the cause this time. “It’s not about the money,” said Albers: “The energy transition is being slowed down on a small scale.”
The most important cause lies in the legal resistance of wildlife and forest conservationists fighting new wind farms. The BWE President referred to an industry survey of the onshore wind agency. According to its findings, more than 70 percent of the legal objections are based on species conservation, especially the threat to endangered bird species and bats. Wind power president Albers called many complaints unfounded. He claims that the population of the red kite raptors has actually increased in parallel with the expansion of wind power. However, the nature conservation federation of Germany would not support this claim when asked by Die WELT.
In addition to species protection, it is primarily conflicts with noise protection that are leading to legal objections against wind power projects. They are responsible for 17 per cent of legal cases. Monument protection are behind six percent of lawsuits.
By introducing a market-based tendering model, the federal government forced the wind power industry to cut costs and make cut-throat calculations. On top of the growing economic risk comes now the risk of legal action. Both together scare off more and more potential investors. Since the federal government also removed some problematic privileges for so-called community wind farms, there are no longer enough participants for the public auction rounds. Of the more than 1350 megawatts of wind power projects tendered this year, only 746 megawatts could be slated for a project.
Ever since local resident protests in many state parliaments have led to critical discussions about a minimum distance to residential development, the licensing authorities have been acting much more cautiously than before, the wind power lobby criticises. According to BWE figures, 11,000 megawatts of wind energy capacity are currently stuck in the permit backlog.
“Military concerns and FM radio beacons also constituted significant approval barriers”. Altogether 4790 megawatts of wind power are blocked here, of which alone 2370 megawatts are blocked by the distance control. Wind power projects would have to keep a distance of 10 to 15 kilometers in Germany to the stations that are used for navigation in aviation, Albers claimed: Some neighboring states were content with half this distance.
Translation GWPF
Full story
Friday 26 July 2019
COULD WATER RATIONING BE COMING IN THE UK?
This post explains the headline. As the population continues increasing here it seems we are heading for more and more restrictions. Immigration has a hidden cost. With 250,000 a year net increase our island is becoming under increasing pressure. Only today I was at a meeting where the pressures of visitors on the New Forest was being discussed and there was talk of starting to charge for parking in the forest car parks. They are still free at present but for how long?
Thursday 25 July 2019
PREPARE FOR EXTREME WEATHER, EVEN IF IT HAS NOT INCREASED RECENTLY
Joe Oliver: We Should Prepare For Extreme Weather, But Tying It To Climate Change Is A Mistake
Financial Post, 23 July 2019
The harm caused by extreme weather merits a national action plan, whatever its cause and whether or not it is increasing in severity or frequency. Policies that only address climate change won’t do the job.
Canadians are bombarded with images of forest fires, tornadoes and torrential rain, all attributed to manmade climate change. We are warned that these calamities will get much worse and that catastrophes will soon be irreversible unless we urgently reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
But the causes of extreme weather and whether it’s bound to become more common are still being debated by scientists. In a paper just published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Judith Curry, President of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, concludes that “recent international and national climate assessment reports have reported low confidence in any link between manmade climate change and observations of wildfires, hurricanes, floods and droughts.” As a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and a distinguished academician who has authored over 190 scientific papers, she should know. Dr. Curry notes further that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “there is not yet evidence of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires.”
To put it in layman’s terms, climate change is probably not responsible for extreme weather, which in any case has not increased over time, in spite of its evident variability. Yet we keep hearing the very opposite from numerous doomsayers, most with no scientific background — including the prime minister, his hyperbolic minister of environment and climate change, the mainstream media and the climate-industrial complex.
Let’s do a thought-experiment. Assume for a moment, contrary to conventional wisdom, that Dr. Curry is correct and what you hear from so many politicians and social media outlets doesn’t stand up to the evidence. Would that mean we don’t face a serious threat? Not at all. As Dr. Curry also makes clear, our vulnerability to extreme weather has increased with population growth, the movement of people, goods and infrastructure to areas susceptible to extreme weather, questionable land-use practices and continuing ecosystem degradation. As we have all seen, the risks to life and property can be severe and may well be growing. Thankfully, there are policies, strategies and adaptations that can lessen the harm. Whether you are a climate change alarmist, an agnostic, a skeptic or an outright denier you should still support adaptation and mitigation strategies.
Unfortunately, as Dr. Curry writes, attributing extreme weather to manmade climate change can keep us from understanding the variability of extreme weather events and reducing our vulnerability to them. Tying these events to climate change can lead us to adopt inappropriate policies and ignore practical approaches that would lessen personal injury and the destruction of physical assets.
We have an opportunity to be proactive in preparing for weather disasters, reducing our vulnerability and increasing our survivability. Doing so means strengthening our infrastructure, as well as changing our policies and practices.
What is Justin Trudeau’s response to all this? To impose a controversial carbon dioxide tax that, because of the relative inelasticity of demand, is too low to change consumer behaviour. Even if it did eventually work at much higher levels, which the government now claims it will not impose, its impact on global climate would be so small as to be unmeasurable. Even if climate change were the source of extreme weather, Trudeau’s signature carbon solution would be certain to fail.
Under the circumstances, it makes more sense to focus on adaptations and policies that will reduce or protect against the frequency and intensity of fires, floods and tornadoes. Yet Justin Trudeau persists in feel-good virtue signalling and promoting hugely expensive and divisive policy innovations that accomplish nothing.
Canada badly needs leadership that will unite the country in common cause. A good start would be a co-ordinated federal-provincial-municipal action plan that realistically confronts the risks that extreme weather poses.
Joe Oliver was federal minister of finance and minister of natural resources.
Financial Post, 23 July 2019
The harm caused by extreme weather merits a national action plan, whatever its cause and whether or not it is increasing in severity or frequency. Policies that only address climate change won’t do the job.
Canadians are bombarded with images of forest fires, tornadoes and torrential rain, all attributed to manmade climate change. We are warned that these calamities will get much worse and that catastrophes will soon be irreversible unless we urgently reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
But the causes of extreme weather and whether it’s bound to become more common are still being debated by scientists. In a paper just published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Judith Curry, President of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, concludes that “recent international and national climate assessment reports have reported low confidence in any link between manmade climate change and observations of wildfires, hurricanes, floods and droughts.” As a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and a distinguished academician who has authored over 190 scientific papers, she should know. Dr. Curry notes further that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “there is not yet evidence of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires.”
To put it in layman’s terms, climate change is probably not responsible for extreme weather, which in any case has not increased over time, in spite of its evident variability. Yet we keep hearing the very opposite from numerous doomsayers, most with no scientific background — including the prime minister, his hyperbolic minister of environment and climate change, the mainstream media and the climate-industrial complex.
Let’s do a thought-experiment. Assume for a moment, contrary to conventional wisdom, that Dr. Curry is correct and what you hear from so many politicians and social media outlets doesn’t stand up to the evidence. Would that mean we don’t face a serious threat? Not at all. As Dr. Curry also makes clear, our vulnerability to extreme weather has increased with population growth, the movement of people, goods and infrastructure to areas susceptible to extreme weather, questionable land-use practices and continuing ecosystem degradation. As we have all seen, the risks to life and property can be severe and may well be growing. Thankfully, there are policies, strategies and adaptations that can lessen the harm. Whether you are a climate change alarmist, an agnostic, a skeptic or an outright denier you should still support adaptation and mitigation strategies.
Unfortunately, as Dr. Curry writes, attributing extreme weather to manmade climate change can keep us from understanding the variability of extreme weather events and reducing our vulnerability to them. Tying these events to climate change can lead us to adopt inappropriate policies and ignore practical approaches that would lessen personal injury and the destruction of physical assets.
We have an opportunity to be proactive in preparing for weather disasters, reducing our vulnerability and increasing our survivability. Doing so means strengthening our infrastructure, as well as changing our policies and practices.
What is Justin Trudeau’s response to all this? To impose a controversial carbon dioxide tax that, because of the relative inelasticity of demand, is too low to change consumer behaviour. Even if it did eventually work at much higher levels, which the government now claims it will not impose, its impact on global climate would be so small as to be unmeasurable. Even if climate change were the source of extreme weather, Trudeau’s signature carbon solution would be certain to fail.
Under the circumstances, it makes more sense to focus on adaptations and policies that will reduce or protect against the frequency and intensity of fires, floods and tornadoes. Yet Justin Trudeau persists in feel-good virtue signalling and promoting hugely expensive and divisive policy innovations that accomplish nothing.
Canada badly needs leadership that will unite the country in common cause. A good start would be a co-ordinated federal-provincial-municipal action plan that realistically confronts the risks that extreme weather poses.
Joe Oliver was federal minister of finance and minister of natural resources.
Wednesday 24 July 2019
URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT CAUSED 50% OF WARMING IN CHINA
This article explains the reasoning behind this. I wonder why this should not apply to other parts of the world where there has been rapid urbanisation?
Tuesday 23 July 2019
STRONGEST SUMMER JET STREAM EVER TO HIT PACIFIC NORTH=WEST
This piece has nothing to do with global warming, but it was just so interesting I thought it was worth sharing it with readers. There is still so much that we don't understand about our climate, and yet some scientists just don't want to admit it.
Monday 22 July 2019
BBC IN BED WITH CLIMATE ANARCHISTS
This article is a wake up call to all who believe in law and order. It shows just how far the BBC is going to publicise and legitimise the anarchist group Extinction Rebellion. along with the police, who seem to think they are their bodyguards, they are not only given a free pass to promote their democracy-destroying ideas, they are being promoted. Opposition is futile when those who are supposed to stand up for our freedom are actually helping to undermine it. The judiciary and politicians seem to be cowed by them too.
This article comes to a similar conclusion.
This article comes to a similar conclusion.
Sunday 21 July 2019
BEWARE THE INCREASE IN COSMIC RAYS AS SOLAR MINIMUM ARRIVES
One Of The Deepest Solar Minima In 100 Years Underway Now Tony Phillips, Spaceweather.com, 16 July 2019
Note to astronauts: 2019 is not a good year to fly into deep space. In fact, it’s shaping up to be one of the worst of the Space Age.
The reason is, the solar cycle. One of the deepest Solar Minima of the past century is underway now. As the sun’s magnetic field weakens, cosmic rays from deep space are flooding into the solar system, posing potential health risks to astronauts.
NASA is monitoring the situation with a radiation sensor in lunar orbit. The Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER) has been circling the Moon on NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft since 2009. Researchers have just published a paper in the journal Space Weather describing CRaTER’s latest findings.
“The overall decrease in solar activity in this period has led to an increased flux of energetic particles, to levels that are approaching those observed during the previous solar minimum in 2009/2010, which was the deepest minimum of the Space Age,” write the authors, led by Cary Zeitlin of NASA’s Johnson Space Flight Center. “The data have implications for human exploration of deep space.”
This always happens during Solar Minimum. As solar activity goes down, cosmic rays go up. The last two Solar Minima have been unusually deep, leading to high cosmic ray fluxes in 2008-2010 and again in 2018-2019. These are the worst years since humans first left Earth in the 1960s.
“It’s a bit counterintuitive,” says one of the authors, Nathan Schwadron, a space physicist at the University of New Hampshire. “Solar Minimum may actually be more dangerous than Solar Maximum.”
In their paper, Zeitlin, Schwadron and co-authors describe an interesting experiment by NASA that highlights the relative peril of solar flares vs. cosmic rays. In 2011, NASA launched the Curiosity rover to Mars. Inside its spacecraft, the rover was protected by about as much shielding (20 gm/cm^2) as a human astronaut would have. A radiation sensor tucked inside kept track of Curiosity’s exposure.
The results were surprising. During the 9-month journey to Mars, radiation from solar flares (including the strongest flare of the previous solar cycle) accounted for only about 5% of Curiosity’s total dose. The remaining 95% came from cosmic rays.
Why the imbalance? “Solar flares of the size we’ve seen during the Space Age can be largely mitigated by achievable depths of spacecraft shielding(1),” explains Zeitlin. “We can’t stop the highest energy cosmic rays, however. They penetrate the walls of any spacecraft.”
Solar flares are still a concern. If an astronaut were caught outside on EVA during an intense, unexpected flare, acute effects could include vomiting, fatigue, and low blood counts. A quick return to Earth might be required for medical care. Cosmic rays are more insidious, acting slowly, with maladies such as cancer or heart disease showing up years after the exposure.
As 2019 unfolds, Solar Minimum appears to still be deepening. Cosmic rays haven’t quite broken the Space Age record set in 2009-2010, but they’re getting close, only percentage points from the highest values CRaTER has ever recorded.
Full post
Note to astronauts: 2019 is not a good year to fly into deep space. In fact, it’s shaping up to be one of the worst of the Space Age.
The reason is, the solar cycle. One of the deepest Solar Minima of the past century is underway now. As the sun’s magnetic field weakens, cosmic rays from deep space are flooding into the solar system, posing potential health risks to astronauts.
NASA is monitoring the situation with a radiation sensor in lunar orbit. The Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER) has been circling the Moon on NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft since 2009. Researchers have just published a paper in the journal Space Weather describing CRaTER’s latest findings.
“The overall decrease in solar activity in this period has led to an increased flux of energetic particles, to levels that are approaching those observed during the previous solar minimum in 2009/2010, which was the deepest minimum of the Space Age,” write the authors, led by Cary Zeitlin of NASA’s Johnson Space Flight Center. “The data have implications for human exploration of deep space.”
This always happens during Solar Minimum. As solar activity goes down, cosmic rays go up. The last two Solar Minima have been unusually deep, leading to high cosmic ray fluxes in 2008-2010 and again in 2018-2019. These are the worst years since humans first left Earth in the 1960s.
“It’s a bit counterintuitive,” says one of the authors, Nathan Schwadron, a space physicist at the University of New Hampshire. “Solar Minimum may actually be more dangerous than Solar Maximum.”
In their paper, Zeitlin, Schwadron and co-authors describe an interesting experiment by NASA that highlights the relative peril of solar flares vs. cosmic rays. In 2011, NASA launched the Curiosity rover to Mars. Inside its spacecraft, the rover was protected by about as much shielding (20 gm/cm^2) as a human astronaut would have. A radiation sensor tucked inside kept track of Curiosity’s exposure.
The results were surprising. During the 9-month journey to Mars, radiation from solar flares (including the strongest flare of the previous solar cycle) accounted for only about 5% of Curiosity’s total dose. The remaining 95% came from cosmic rays.
Why the imbalance? “Solar flares of the size we’ve seen during the Space Age can be largely mitigated by achievable depths of spacecraft shielding(1),” explains Zeitlin. “We can’t stop the highest energy cosmic rays, however. They penetrate the walls of any spacecraft.”
Solar flares are still a concern. If an astronaut were caught outside on EVA during an intense, unexpected flare, acute effects could include vomiting, fatigue, and low blood counts. A quick return to Earth might be required for medical care. Cosmic rays are more insidious, acting slowly, with maladies such as cancer or heart disease showing up years after the exposure.
As 2019 unfolds, Solar Minimum appears to still be deepening. Cosmic rays haven’t quite broken the Space Age record set in 2009-2010, but they’re getting close, only percentage points from the highest values CRaTER has ever recorded.
Full post
Saturday 20 July 2019
AUTHORITIES ARE WAKING UP TO THE TRUE NATURE OF CLIMATE ANARCHISTS (FINALLY)
The UK police response to the disruption caused by climate anarchists has been pathetic. At last someone has spoken out, but will the government take any notice?
Treat Extinction Rebellion As An Extremist Anarchist Group, Former Anti-Terror Chief Tells Police The Daily Telegraph, 17 July 2019
Extinction Rebellion (XR) should be treated as an extremist anarchist group and police must stop their “soft touch” approach, a former Scotland Yard head of counter-terrorism has warned.
Richard Walton, who headed the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command until 2016, said his investigation into XR revealed it had a “subversive” agenda rooted in the “political extremism of anarchism” rather than just campaigning on climate change.
He said he had uncovered evidence that XR leaders advocated “revolution” to overturn capitalism, mass protest and law-breaking aimed at achieving a breakdown of democracy and the state - an intent many of its middle class and celebrity backers appeared unaware of.
His 73-page report, published on Wednesday by think tank Policy Exchange, criticised Scotland Yard for its “passive” and “tolerant” response to XR’s London protests in April which caused gridlock at a cost of at least £28 million in lost shop takings and extra policing.
He recommended police adopt a “proactive” approach to prevent XR and other political activists embarking on illegal tactics.
He said the Government should reform laws to enable police to place more restrictions on planned protests and prosecute protestors for road blocking and trespass.
And politicians such as Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell and public figures like the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and actress Emma Thompson should “avoid endorsing, legitimising or meeting” with XR while its leadership continued to incite law breaking.
“As a result of the evidence we have uncovered, no one can now plead ignorance of the ominous and threatening intentions of this campaigning organisation,” said Mr Walton, co-author of the report, the first by the New Politics Monitor launched today by Policy Exchange to investigate extremism across the political spectrum.
XR was founded by Compassionate Revolution Ltd and Rising Up!, which was originally formed by activists involved in direct action groups including Occupy, Plane Stupid and Reclaim the Power. It extolled “revolution,” redistribution of wealth and branded police “fascists.”
A tweet at the outset of XR’s London action, subsequently deleted, declared: “This movement is the best chance we have of bringing down capitalism.”
Gail Bradbrook, co-founder of XR, told a conference: “Civil disobedience is essential right now.” Caiming that the social contract is now broken, she stressed: “I'm not organising protests, I'm organising a rebellion against my government.”
XR co-founder Roger Hallam even spoke of people dying for the cause, according to the report.
Full story
Treat Extinction Rebellion As An Extremist Anarchist Group, Former Anti-Terror Chief Tells Police The Daily Telegraph, 17 July 2019
Extinction Rebellion (XR) should be treated as an extremist anarchist group and police must stop their “soft touch” approach, a former Scotland Yard head of counter-terrorism has warned.
Richard Walton, who headed the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command until 2016, said his investigation into XR revealed it had a “subversive” agenda rooted in the “political extremism of anarchism” rather than just campaigning on climate change.
He said he had uncovered evidence that XR leaders advocated “revolution” to overturn capitalism, mass protest and law-breaking aimed at achieving a breakdown of democracy and the state - an intent many of its middle class and celebrity backers appeared unaware of.
His 73-page report, published on Wednesday by think tank Policy Exchange, criticised Scotland Yard for its “passive” and “tolerant” response to XR’s London protests in April which caused gridlock at a cost of at least £28 million in lost shop takings and extra policing.
He recommended police adopt a “proactive” approach to prevent XR and other political activists embarking on illegal tactics.
He said the Government should reform laws to enable police to place more restrictions on planned protests and prosecute protestors for road blocking and trespass.
And politicians such as Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell and public figures like the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and actress Emma Thompson should “avoid endorsing, legitimising or meeting” with XR while its leadership continued to incite law breaking.
“As a result of the evidence we have uncovered, no one can now plead ignorance of the ominous and threatening intentions of this campaigning organisation,” said Mr Walton, co-author of the report, the first by the New Politics Monitor launched today by Policy Exchange to investigate extremism across the political spectrum.
XR was founded by Compassionate Revolution Ltd and Rising Up!, which was originally formed by activists involved in direct action groups including Occupy, Plane Stupid and Reclaim the Power. It extolled “revolution,” redistribution of wealth and branded police “fascists.”
A tweet at the outset of XR’s London action, subsequently deleted, declared: “This movement is the best chance we have of bringing down capitalism.”
Gail Bradbrook, co-founder of XR, told a conference: “Civil disobedience is essential right now.” Caiming that the social contract is now broken, she stressed: “I'm not organising protests, I'm organising a rebellion against my government.”
XR co-founder Roger Hallam even spoke of people dying for the cause, according to the report.
Full story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)