100,000 Amazon Trees Chopped Down to Build Road for COP30 Climate Conference

Spare a thought for the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt as he considers his upcoming trip to the Brazilian city of Belém to report on COP30. Saving the world and its environment is his gig so how will he face the prospect of travelling down a new four-lane highway cut through the dense Amazon rainforest to help speed him and his 70,000 other political activists to their luxury hotels? Based on trees per acre, an estimated 100,000 mature specimens have been chopped down and logged to build the eight-mile Avenida Liberdade causing untold disruption to local wildlife.

Aerial view of a logging site in a dense rainforest, showing a dirt road with cut timber stacked on the sides, surrounded by lush greenery.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Chris Morrison

Aerial view of a cleared path in the Amazon rainforest with exposed soil and construction activity, showing the impact of road development.

Spare a thought for the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt as he considers his upcoming trip to the Brazilian city of Belém to report on COP30. Saving the world and its environment is his gig so how will he face the prospect of travelling down a new four-lane highway cut through the dense Amazon rainforest to help speed him and his 70,000 other political activists to their luxury hotels? Based on trees per acre, an estimated 100,000 mature specimens have been chopped down and logged to build the eight-mile Avenida Liberdade causing untold disruption to local wildlife. Happily, all is not lost in despair. If he wishes, the BBC’s activist-in-chief can consider recent findings published in Nature Plants that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have led to substantial growth in the remaining Amazon forest, with mature trees growing by over 6% a decade. Perhaps he could start promoting on the BBC the enormous benefits of CO2, rightly known as the gas of life. He could front a campaign to assuage his dented COP conscience along the lines: ‘Forward with Carbon Dioxide, not Chainsaws.’

Needless to say, the fatter trees of the Amazon have received little publicity in narrative-driven mainstream media. Extensive Green Blob-funded grooming is deployed to keep this type of inconvenient global ‘greening’ material out of the papers. Little mention is made of the astonishing CO2-fuelled growth in global vegetation seen across the planet in the last 40 years. Increases of around 15% are common, some deserts have started to shrink, and world famine has been alleviated by higher crop yields. SciLine is connected with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, publisher of Science, and it recently suggested that writers head off the ‘greening’ story by noting that “in many cases, CO2 disproportionately favours weeds over crops, causing more problems for agriculture”.

In 2022 Rowlatt authored an alarmist series on BBC Radio 4 and World Service called The Climate Tipping Points in which he highlighted the potential “collapse of the Amazon rainforest” as one of the major irreversible changes tiggered by global warming. Not yet, it seems, for while Rowlatt was spouting this computer model agitprop, the scientists out in the field preparing their recently published paper found “aggressive changes” in mature tropical forest biomass. Yet again, it might be noted, climate model predictions fail the test when confronted with actual scientific data. As MIT Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen has said about the evidence-lite climate dogma: “The narrative is a quasi-religious movement predicated on an absurd scientific narrative.”

The team of researchers found that over 30 years of Amazonian plant data records across 188 mature forest plots, the trees had become considerably larger over time. The basal area, the size of the tree trunk near ground level, increased by 3.3% a decade. Trees fight for light and space in close proximity and height, and size are an obvious advantage. While the larger trees were found to increase by over 6% a decade, the smaller plants also thrived, suggesting, the scientists note, that any recent negative climatic influences have been “more than alleviated” by the positive effects of increased resources such as CO2 fertilisation. In effect the smaller trees operating in more difficult low light conditions can use the extra CO2 to photosynthesise more easily and survive for longer.

In an article published in Watts Up With That?, Anthony Watts was clear on the important findings of the paper. It’s “plain old plant biology” he said, adding: “CO2 fertilisation is no longer a theory tested only in labs. This study confirms it at continental scale: Amazon forest are thriving, not suffering, in a world with more CO2.”

It’s likely that the Guardian will be assembling a team to travel the Avenida Liberdade Highway of Shame to attend the increasingly irrelevant COP Net Zero boondoggle. The newspaper recently reported that the big Amazon trees were more climate resistant “than previously believed”, proving that the ‘reverse ferret’ is alive and well in media land. “Previously believed”, of course, only applies to those who are unaware of the paleo record stretching back hundreds of millions of years. Perhaps it was a first for Popular Mechanics, which gave us its ‘Amazon’s Trees Are Weirdly Getting Bigger Every Decade, Which Defies Logic‘. Might be best not to give up the day writing job here. Finally, and perhaps scraping the barrel for any coverage of this important paper, NBC News noted the view of one scientist that fattening trees is “in some ways” a positive news story. “But it also means that the forest is now more vulnerable to losing those trees.” The obvious statement was then made that any benefit in larger trees sizes “can be quite easily negated by deforestation and logging”.

Something all those virtuous delegates to COP30 might just know something about.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.

Sadiq Khan Racks Up Enough Air Miles to Fly to the Moon and Back

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has been accused of “preaching Net Zero from the comfort of his many plane journeys” after racking up enough air miles to fly to the Moon and back in attending international climate summits and events abroad.

Close-up of a serious-looking man with grey hair, next to a graphic showing '473,000 air miles' and an image of the moon, highlighting the contrast between frequent flying and preaching environmental responsibility.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Will Jones

Mayor accused of ‘preaching net zero from the comfort of his many plane journeys’

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has been accused of “preaching Net Zero from the comfort of his many plane journeys” after racking up enough air miles to fly to the Moon and back in attending international climate summits and events abroad. The Telegraph has the story.

Analysis of the Mayor of London’s international travel expenses show that the architect of London’s ultra low emission zone (Ulez) expansion has flown more than 73,000 miles across the past eight years.

This equates to over 473,000 air miles when flying with a team of people, producing a total of 43.6 tonnes of carbon through 13 flights.

It is roughly the equivalent to flying 19 times around the Earth’s circumference at the equator – or just under one trip to the moon and back.

In total, his office purchased at least 70 seats on international flights – enough to fill up an ATR 72 aircraft (a type of carrier used for short-haul flights).

This included an entourage of eight accompanying Khan to New York last September as he represented C40 Cities as its co-chair at an international climate conference.

In total, data from 2023-24 reveals Sir Sadiq took 23 members of staff with him on four trips to events in New York and Rome and Paris – two of which were climate related.

Other flights from previous years include a trip to India and Pakistan in 2017 with seven members of staff, which cost nearly £21,000 and racked up over 66,000 air miles.

In 2016, he also made a trip to Canada and the USA with a team of seven, which cost over £32,000 and amounted to over 56,000 air miles. …

Sir Sadiq has historically opposed Heathrow’s proposed third runway, telling reporters in June 2023 that “we don’t want more flights”.

In January 2025, he said: “I remain opposed to a new runway at Heathrow Airport because of the severe impact it will have on noise, air pollution and meeting our climate-change targets.”

He added: “I’m simply not convinced that you can have hundreds of thousands of additional flights at Heathrow every year without a hugely damaging impact on our environment.”

In May 2023, when asked about private jets, he said: “Frequent air travellers should consider firstly whether a particular journey is needed at all and, if so, to take the lowest carbon options wherever possible.”

The Mayor has also repeatedly encouraged Londoners to “reduce carbon emissions to help save the planet”. …

Victoria Atkins, the Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “Anyone who lives, works or visits London knows how it has become one giant traffic jam under Sadiq Khan. In a textbook example of Left-wing hypocrisy, ‘Climate Khan’ is happy to close roads, drive up costs for drivers and waste our time in jams, while preaching Net Zero from the comfort of his many plane journeys.”

Worth reading in full.

COP30 CEO: “Climate change is our biggest war”

The Brazilian climate conference leadership is fed up with trade wars and shooting wars distracting from climate negotiations.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

The Brazilian climate conference leadership is fed up with trade wars and shooting wars distracting from climate negotiations.

‘Climate is our biggest war’, warns CEO of Cop30 ahead of UN summit in Brazil

Negotiators doubt countries’ financial and environmental commitment as military and trade wars divert attention

Fiona Harvey Environment editor
Sun 29 Jun 2025 14.00 AEST

“Climate is our biggest war. Climate is here for the next 100 years. We need to focus and … not allow those [other] wars to take our attention away from the bigger fight that we need to have.”

Ana Toni, the chief executive of Cop30, the UN climate summit to be held in Brazil this November, is worried. With only four months before the crucial global summit, the world’s response to the climate crisis is in limbo.

Fewer than 30 of the 200 countries that will gather in the Amazonian city of Belém have drafted plans, required by the 2015 Paris agreement, to stave off the worst ravages of climate breakdown.

…

Meanwhile, the US president, Donald Trump, has withdrawn from the Paris agreement and is intent on expanding fossil fuels and dismantling carbon-cutting efforts. The EU is mired in tense arguments over its plans. China, the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, is rumoured to be considering weak targets that would condemn the world to much greater heating.

…

Toni, a respected Brazilian economist, told the Guardian: “There’s no doubt that the wars that we’ve seen – military wars and trade wars … are very damaging – physically, economically, socially – and they divert the direction and the attention from climate.”

…Read more: 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/29/climate-is-our-biggest-war-warns-ceo-of-cop30-ahead-of-un-summit-in-brazil

Are we finally coming to the end of the COP climate process?

Nations are struggling to get their homework in on time, everyone wants to see what everyone else is doing before they submit their own grudging climate plan.

China is rebelling, new coal approvals have surged.

India is powering their economic catchup with China by building more coal infrastructure.

Africa is racing up from the bottom, building enormous fossil fuel projects to leapfrog their economies into the modern world.

European nations, as usual are being utter hypocrites – pretending they care about climate change, while rushing to exploit and import as much fossil fuel as they can, to prop up their failed renewable systems. Leave it in the ground – except when a European company or nation wants it.

Even Brazil, the host of the COP30 climate conference, is getting into the climate hypocrisy act, clearing a large tract of Amazonian rainforest to create a new highway to the conference site. I wonder if conference participants will be able to purchase souvenirs made from the rare and endangered hardwoods which were bulldozed to make that climate conference road?

And towering over all this is the US led AI revolution, which is driving a profound uptick in demand for energy across the entire world – an increase in demand which cannot be answered by renewables.

The global climate movement is the walking dead, all we need is to wait a little for it to lay down and stop moving.

Bernie’s Private Jet Hypocrisy: Preaching Climate Crisis While Soaring in Style

Give the devil his due: Senator Bernie Sanders never misses an opportunity to remind Americans about our planet’s supposed peril. In a 2023 MSNBC op-ed, he whined: “The climate crisis is not just an environmental issue. It is a matter of justice, of health, of economics, and of national security.” According to Sanders, climate change is a moral and existential threat demanding sweeping government intervention and dramatic changes in personal behavior.

ChatGPT

From Watts Up With That?

By Larry Behrens

Give the devil his due: Senator Bernie Sanders never misses an opportunity to remind Americans about our planet’s supposed peril. In a 2023 MSNBC op-ed, he whined: “The climate crisis is not just an environmental issue. It is a matter of justice, of health, of economics, and of national security.” According to Sanders, climate change is a moral and existential threat demanding sweeping government intervention and dramatic changes in personal behavior.

Except, of course, when it comes to how he lives his own life.

Sanders’ recent “Fighting Oligarchy” tour paints a very different picture. While crisscrossing the country decrying the evils of capitalism, Sanders traveled by—you guessed it—private jet. According to a new analysis from Power The Future, the senator’s 16-stop tour spewed an estimated 62.15 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

To put in context, that’s more than the average American produces in five years.

In fact, Sanders’ emissions from just one tour equal the annual emissions from 15 gasoline-powered cars. It’s the carbon equivalent to driving a gas-powered SUV 150,000 miles, or more than 6 times around the Earth at the equator. And this from a man who wants to regulate what kind of stove you use in your kitchen.

When questioned about the blatant hypocrisy, Sanders didn’t offer contrition. He doubled down. “You think I’m gonna be sitting on a waiting line at United… while 30,000 people are waiting?” he snapped at Bret Baier.

This isn’t the first time Sanders’ climate preaching has clashed with his jet-setting lifestyle. During the 2020 Democratic primary, his campaign shelled out over $1.2 million on private jet travel. Then, as now, the justification was the same: it’s okay when Bernie does it because his cause is righteous.

Let’s call this what it is: Mile High Marxism. Sanders flies high above the rest of us, belching carbon into the atmosphere while demanding working families pay more for energy and drive electric vehicles. He insists there’s a climate emergency but behaves like there’s no emergency at all.

The green movement is filled with elites just like Sanders—people who use the language of crisis to amass power while living above the consequences of their policies. They want to ban gas cars, restrict domestic energy production, and ration electricity, but they’ll never give up their jets, SUVs, or lakefront mansions. It’s not about saving the planet. It’s about control.

Consider this: if the planet were truly teetering on the edge of climate catastrophe, would the loudest alarmists be the least willing to change their own behavior? If climate change were the existential threat they claim, wouldn’t they at least attempt to lead by example? Instead, we get moral lectures from the tarmac.

In Bernie Sanders’ perfect world, Americans brace for rising utility bills, submit to EV mandates, and prepare for lifestyle sacrifices in the name of “climate justice.” But the hypocrisy is impossible to ignore. Jet fuel for Bernie. Unreliable solar panels for you. We get limits, they get luxury.

Perhaps the clearest signal of the climate emergency’s last gasps is how those who scream the loudest behave when the cameras are off. Sanders and his ilk want us to panic, comply, and pay up. But their actions—lavish travel, carbon excess, and indulgent living—reveal that even they don’t believe their own doomsday rhetoric.

When Bernie Sanders burns more fuel in one tour than a family does in half a decade, he’s not just undermining his credibility—he’s exposing the entire charade. It’s almost as amusing as a multimillionaire “socialist.”

So, the next time you hear Sanders railing about climate justice, remember this: the Mile High Marxist says the world is ending, but he’s still flying first class into the apocalypse. And that tells you everything you need to know.

Larry Behrens is an energy expert and the Communications Director for Power The Future. He has appeared on Fox News, ZeroHedge, and NewsMax speaking in defense of American energy workers. You can follow him on X/Twitter @larrybehrens

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Microsoft: We Need AI Save the World with Nuclear Fusion

Big tech pushing back on accusations of being AI obsessed climate wreckers.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Big tech pushing back on accusations of being AI obsessed climate wreckers.

Microsoft wants us to believe AI will crack practical fusion power, driving future AI

This BS ends at some point, right?

Thomas Claburn 
Fri 9 May 2025  // 11:23 UTC 

Microsoft believes AI can hasten development of nuclear fusion as a practical energy source, which could in turn accelerate answers to the question of how to power AI.

…

“The pursuit of nuclear fusion as a limitless, clean energy source has long been one of humanity’s most ambitious scientific goals,” three Microsoft Research boffins – Kenji Takeda, Shruti Rajurkar, and Ade Famoti – wrote in a post published Wednesday.

“While scalable fusion energy is still years away, researchers are now exploring how AI can help accelerate fusion research and bring this energy to the grid sooner.”

…

Such speculation is needed because AI is not currently sustainable. As the UN Environment Program observed last year, “The proliferating datacenters that house AI servers produce electronic waste. They are large consumers of water, which is becoming scarce in many places. They rely on critical minerals and rare elements, which are often mined unsustainably. And they use massive amounts of electricity, spurring the emission of planet-warming greenhouse gases.”

…

Enter Clippy: “I see you’re building a fusion reactor. Would you like some help with that?”Read more: 

https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/09/microsoft_ai_fusion/

I have to say, I like this new green big tech activist plan to defer serious emissions reduction efforts until affordable nuclear fusion is available. If this is the latest green position, I can get on board with that plan, so long as they develop nuclear fusion on their own dime.

Katy Perry Slammed for Climate Hypocrisy Over Trip to Space

Katy Perry Is Being Called A “Walking Oxymoron” After Fans Uncovered A Decade-Old Video Of Her Urging People To Protect The Planet Against “Man-Made Climate Change”

Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

She flew to space for “the benefit of Earth”.

Katy Perry Is Being Called A “Walking Oxymoron” After Fans Uncovered A Decade-Old Video Of Her Urging People To Protect The Planet Against “Man-Made Climate Change”

“The hypocrisy is astounding.”

by Leyla Mohammed
BuzzFeed Staff

I’m sure you’re well aware by now that Katy Perrywas among the group of women who briefly flew to space this week as part of a mission run by Jeff Bezos’s company Blue Origin.

After returning safely, Katy notably claimed that the controversial trip was for “the benefit of Earth.” She said, “It’s about a collective energy and making space for future women. It’s about this wonderful world that we see right out there and appreciating it. This is all for the benefit of Earth.”

…

Well, the backlash has only continued to grow after fans uncovered old footage of Katy actually advocating against “man-made climate change.”

…Read more: 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/leylamohammed/katy-perry-climate-change-activism-amid-backlash-hypocrisy

Katy Perry advocating for climate action 9 years ago:

Katy Perry returning to Earth after spaceflight;

I don’t know why people are making a fuss. There is nothing new about celebrity climate hypocrisy. And the UNICEF video was nine years ago, back when climate action was more fashionable.

The Left’s Localvore Betrayal: Tariffs Expose Climate Hypocrisy

The progressive left has spent years sermonizing about the virtues of “buy local”—fewer carbon-spewing cargo ships, more jobs for American workers, a lighter footprint on Mother Earth. It was their climate gospel, right up there with electric vehicles (EVs) and organic kale. But now, with Donald Trump’s latest tariff push hitting foreign goods hard, the same crowd that once fetishized localism is clutching their imported lattes and crying foul.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

The progressive left has spent years sermonizing about the virtues of “buy local”—fewer carbon-spewing cargo ships, more jobs for American workers, a lighter footprint on Mother Earth. It was their climate gospel, right up there with electric vehicles (EVs) and organic kale. But now, with Donald Trump’s latest tariff push hitting foreign goods hard, the same crowd that once fetishized localism is clutching their imported lattes and crying foul. First, they turned on Tesla’s EVs, now they’re ditching “buy local”—and the irony is thicker than a smog cloud over Beijing.

Trump’s tariff offensive, rolled out with gusto in recent weeks, is designed to jolt American manufacturing back to life. The White House calls it a “liberation” for U.S. workers, targeting everything from foreign cars to cheap overseas parts. Tesla, with its factories humming in California and Texas, should be a winner here—more expensive imports mean a leg up for homegrown EVs. You’d think the climate crowd would cheer: fewer globe-trotting supply chains, less fuel burned, a win for their Climate Hypocrisy. After all, studies have long shown that local production can slash transport emissions—think of the diesel-chugging freighters idling off Long Beach. But instead of popping champagne, leftists are picketing Tesla dealerships and wailing about trade wars. What gives?

The answer’s simple: politics trumps principle. Tesla’s sin isn’t its carbon footprint—it’s Elon Musk, the man who dared to join Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and swing an axe at sacred federal programs. Protests that started last year with “Honk if you hate Elon” signs have escalated in 2025 to smashed windows and torched showrooms, with Trump blasting the culprits as “domestic terrorists” at a March presser. Never mind that Tesla’s U.S.-made EVs align with the localvore dream—progressives dumped them the second Musk’s politics went rogue. Now, they’re turning on tariffs too, despite the climate perks of keeping production stateside. It’s a stunning reversal for a movement that once claimed the moral high ground on emissions.

The tariff backlash is peak hypocrisy. These are the same folks who’ve spent decades guilting us about “food miles” and the evils of globalization. Localism was their shield against Big Oil and corporate sprawl—until Trump made it his weapon. Now, they’re decrying the very policies that could shrink the carbon cost of goods, all because the wrong guy’s in charge. Canada’s retaliatory moves have them clutching pearls over higher prices, while EU threats of tit-for-tat duties spark fears of a “globalist” meltdown. Protests in Toronto even looped Tesla into the mess, tying Musk to Trump’s trade agenda. Suddenly, the climate alarmists who swore by local economies are rooting for the transatlantic supply chain. Who needs irony when you’ve got this?

Meanwhile, the climate math gets ignored. Shorter supply lines mean less shipping, less fuel, fewer emissions—stuff the left used to tattoo on their reusable tote bags. Tesla’s CFO griped earlier this year about supply chain hiccups from Canada and Mexico, but Musk himself admitted on X that local production could offset some pain. The tariff push might just force more companies to build here, not there. Yet the left’s too busy raging at Trump to notice—or care. They’d rather burn the localvore playbook than admit he’s stumbled into their own logic.

This is the real story: the left’s climate crusade was never about the planet. It was about control, optics, and punishing the right villains. When Tesla’s EVs stopped being their mascot, they trashed them. Now that tariffs threaten their borderless worldview, “buy local” is out the window too. Next, they’ll be boycotting farmers’ markets if Trump tweets about them. For a movement obsessed with saving the Earth, they sure love abandoning their own ideas the minute the politics shift. The climate’s just a prop—until it isn’t.

Amazonian Rainforest Obliterated To Make Way For COP30

As any level-headed sceptic knows, a great deal of climate change activism is about posturing and virtue-signalling. No surprise then that part of an Amazonian rainforest has been obliterated to accommodate the upcoming COP30 summit.

The Daily Sceptic

By Sallust

As any level-headed sceptic knows, a great deal of climate change activism is about posturing and virtue-signalling. No surprise then that part of an Amazonian rainforest has been obliterated to accommodate the upcoming COP30 summit. The BBC has the story (so it must be true):

A new four-lane highway cutting through tens of thousands of acres of protected Amazon rainforest is being built for the COP30 climate summit in the Brazilian city of Belém.

It aims to ease traffic to the city, which will host more than 50,000 people – including world leaders – at the conference in November.

The state government touts the highway’s “sustainable” credentials, but some locals and conservationists are outraged at the environmental impact.

The Amazon plays a vital role in absorbing carbon for the world and providing biodiversity, and many say this deforestation contradicts the very purpose of a climate summit.

Along the partially built road, lush rainforest towers on either side – a reminder of what was once there. Logs are piled high in the cleared land which stretches more than 13km (eight miles) through the rainforest into Belém.

Diggers and machines carve through the forest floor, paving over wetland to surface the road which will cut through a protected area.

Berry harvests have been destroyed with no compensation to the farmers. Wildlife has been disrupted too:

The road leaves two disconnected areas of protected forest. Scientists are concerned it will fragment the ecosystem and disrupt the movement of wildlife.

Prof Silvia Sardinha is a wildlife vet and researcher at a university animal hospital that overlooks the site of the new highway.

She and her team rehabilitate wild animals with injuries, predominantly caused by humans or vehicles.

Once healed, they release them back into the wild – something she says will be harder if there is a highway on their doorstep:

“From the moment of deforestation, there is a loss.

“We are going to lose an area to release these animals back into the wild, the natural environment of these species,” she said.

“Land animals will no longer be able to cross to the other side too, reducing the areas where they can live and breed.”

Needless to say, the underlying reason for this gratuitous destruction is political self-interest:

The Brazilian President and Environment Minister say this will be a historic summit because it is “a COP in the Amazon, not a COP about the Amazon”.

The President says the meeting will provide an opportunity to focus on the needs of the Amazon, show the forest to the world, and present what the federal Government has done to protect it.

Worth reading in full.

Meanwhile back in Britain, Britain’s eco-warrior Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, the tireless advocate of Net Zero at any price, is putting his money where his mouth is with his own brand of virtue-signalling.

According to the Telegraph, Mr Miliband has installed a heat pump in his north London home.

In 2023 his house was awarded an Energy Performance Certificate of grade D. A year later, with a heat pump installed:

The green heating system lowered the home’s carbon emission from 12 tonnes to 4.5 tonnes, but the property’s energy rating only rose to a C grade as a result.

Chris Norris, of the National Residential Landlords Association, said he was unsurprised a heat pump had “little impact” on Mr Miliband’s EPC.

He said: “At present, the metrics used are focused on cost of heating, and gas is significantly cheaper per unit than electricity.

“It is perfectly possible, as things stand, for an EPC score to deteriorate if switching from gas to electricity as the primary heating fuel. Changing this is one of the policies being consulted on by the Government.”

It seems two companies were involved in assessing the properly. Bizarrely:

Furthermore, the recorded floorspace of Mr Miliband’s property was assessed as being 252 square metres – 30 square metres less than had been recorded in the previous assessment only a year before.

There’s an explanation:

The assessor responsible for the new grade is a former hypnotherapist who retrained to be an assessor five years ago. He told the Telegraph that the training took “only around a week” to complete.

He said: “A lot of the time it’s low-paid – estate agents just use you. We’re the lowest of the low, really. EPCs don’t have a very good reputation.”

Dr Toby Gledhill, who led a PhD study into the flaws in EPCs, said of the Energy Minister’s assessments: “The floor area has shrunk quite substantially, by more than 10% between these two EPCs which are only a year apart.

“The smaller floor area means a reduced volume of space to heat, which leads to greater economy and this is reflected in the improved energy rating of the more recent EPC.”

In other words, the new EPC achieved a (slightly) higher grade because of the reduced heating requirements, not because of the heat pump.

The solution would appear to be simple: shut off as many rooms as possible in your home and see your EPC skyrocket. Then you can open them up again after the inspector has gone and save yourself the cost of a heat pump.

Or perhaps the Government could employ more hypnotherapists to encourage people to install more heat pumps?

Also worth reading in full.

Amanda Holden “Took 28 Flights” for BBC Show Despite Net Zero Pledge

Amanda Holden has said that she took 28 flights to Spain during filming for a BBC DIY show, despite the corporation’s Net Zero pledge.

From The Daily Sceptic

by Will Jones

Amanda Holden has said that she took 28 flights to Spain during filming for a BBC DIY show, despite the corporation’s Net Zero pledge. The Telegraph has more.

The Britain’s Got Talent judge said she and her co-host Alan Carr would fly out for several days at a time, before returning back for other work and flying out again.

The apparent admission comes just weeks after the broadcaster published its first climate transition plan.

The BBC’s long-term targets include reducing emissions by “at least 90%” by 2050, with Net Zero one of the three pillars of its sustainable strategy.

However, Holden’s claims have raised questions over compliance to the action plan, given that Amanda & Alan’s Spanish Job has only eight half-hour long episodes.

Speaking to The Rest Is Entertainment, Holden, 54, said: “I think we made 28 flights in total, so we were absolutely shattered and I broke at least four sets of nails.

“We fly out backwards and forwards, obviously I’ve got other jobs that I do, so does Alan.

“So we will fly out for three days, come back and do the other work, and fly out 10 days later.

“Also there are times when me and Alan can’t be there together, so you might see me relaxing on the beach or going to the spa, and Alan might be bashing down a wall and that’s because our schedules weren’t able to work together.”

The comments come despite Tim Davie, the BBC’s Director-General, previously saying: “This will be a huge collective effort.

“It won’t be easy, but we must act, and act now, to reduce our environmental impact.”

A BBC spokesman said the 28 flights were made by both Holden and Carr.

Worth reading in full.

Stop Press: Ed Miliband’s claim that Net Zero will create hundreds of thousands industrial jobs in the UK is vastly overstated, Tony Blair’s think tank, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI), has warned. Investing in green technology is unlikely to reverse the long-term decline of British industry and Ministers must not “over-state the job opportunities from green manufacturing”, the think tank said.

How Ed Miliband’s Net Zero Fantasy Is Deforesting North Carolina

As everyone must now know, it doesn’t matter where the energy comes from in the great rush to Net Zero, only that the source must preferably be invisible to British consumers and voters. It seems that hundreds of acres of forest are being torn down in North Carolina to produce wood-pellets that are then poured into the gaping hungry furnaces of the UK’s Drax power station. 

From The Daily Sceptic

By Sallust

As everyone must now know, it doesn’t matter where the energy comes from in the great rush to Net Zero, only that the source must preferably be invisible to British consumers and voters. It seems that hundreds of acres of forest are being torn down in North Carolina to produce wood-pellets that are then poured into the gaping hungry furnaces of the UK’s Drax power station. 

The Mail has the story:

Some 280 acres of once pristine and ecologically-important wetland forest – a mix of oak, maple, hickory, cypress and pine – have disappeared, torn out as if by a marauding monster. All that’s left is a bleak expanse of boggy pools of water and pulverised pieces of wood.

It’s eerily reminiscent of photographs of No Man’s Land at the Battle of the Somme – only with the addition of several large piles of logs that the men who harvested the lumber from this remote north-eastern corner of North Carolina in November 2023 couldn’t even be bothered to take with them and left to rot.

According to scientists and environmentalists, the idea that new trees will replace the old ones felled any time soon is a load of nonsense:

They point out that burning wood is even dirtier in terms of carbon dioxide than coal and, more important, that it takes decades – 60 or 70 years in the case of hardwood forests – for a new tree to absorb the CO2 lost by burning the old one. 

That’s precious time, they say, that a warming planet simply doesn’t have, and hardly anyone’s idea of ‘sustainable’ energy.

However, that hasn’t stopped successive UK governments, the world’s most enthusiastic convert to the wonders of wood pellets, from giving billions of pounds in renewable energy subsidies to biomass operators.

Needless to say, the heroic leader of the vanguard to turn Britain into a Net Zero paradise of impoverished and frozen people is out in front to help drive this ultimate example of greenwashing:

This week, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband became the latest politician to keep this astonishing arrangement – described by opponents as Britain’s “biggest green hoax” – on the road when he approved a new funding arrangement giving the vast Drax power station in North Yorkshire (the country’s largest) around £2 billion over four years to keep burning biomass.

Miliband, the architect of the Government’s drive to Net Zero, has been implicated in the Drax scandal since 2008 when he was appointed Secretary of State for the newly created Department of Energy and Climate Change by then Prime Minister Gordon Brown. 

Although the new deal cuts Drax’s subsidies in half, given all the Starmer Government has promised about tackling global warming, environmentalists had been hoping for Drax to lose all its subsidy.

Drax, which ironically shares its name with a James Bond villain who set out to destroy the planet, burns the equivalent of 27 million trees every year and – because wood is much dirtier even than coal – is Britain’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, last year producing nearly 12 million tons of the planet-warming gas.

The cooling towers of the controversial Drax Group power station complex near Selby, UK

The Mail’s Tom Leonard inspected the site in person with a local guide:

There were no signs of new trees growing, or anyone trying to re-plant, even on one site that was logged three years ago. “This is ground zero for clearcuts – you see them appearing all the time and it’s really sad,” said my companion, who asked me not to use his name as “these people can be mean”. 

He used to go out regularly looking for new clearcut sites and then follow the lorries taking away lumber and chipped wood so that he could say with confidence that it had gone to an Enviva pellet plant.

Since it started importing huge quantities of pellets in 2012, Drax has relied on America’s South for most of them, not only because it has vast tracts of forest close to coastal ports for easy export but also because these conservative states impose few of the regulations that protect woodland in the UK and the rest of Europe.

Logging companies traditionally cut down only the biggest trees as they are most suitable for the building and furniture industries, leaving the smaller ones to keep growing. They also left the ecologically-precious ‘wetland hardwood’ varieties such as cypress because they were too gnarled to become planks or tables.

It doesn’t matter what your position on climate change is. The story here is the sheer hypocrisy:

Everyone I spoke to in North Carolina admitted they were slightly shocked that “tree-loving” and climate change-aware Britain, of all countries, had facilitated the biomass industry –adopting renewable energy accounting rules that didn’t account either for the forests being lost in the US or the carbon emissions from burning the wood.

Derb Carter, a senior lawyer at the Southern Environmental Law Centre, told me he had repeatedly visited the UK to explain the situation to government officials.

“There was this assumption that surely the US regulates how forests are managed to protect the public interest,” he said. The Brits were “surprised”, he said, when he explained that in southern states like North Carolina, there was nothing of the sort.

He was disappointed by Ed Miliband’s verdict on Drax this week, saying: “This is not a good decision for our climate and certainly not for our forests over here.”

“We had hoped that a new government would have taken a really hard look at this. When you’re basically cutting forests and hauling them across the ocean to burn instead of coal, it makes no sense.”

Mr Carter believes the fact that the environmental destruction happens out of sight – and therefore out of mind – has been very useful for Drax in winning British acquiescence.

“It’s a lot harder to burn your own forest than someone else’s,” he says. “People are going to be a lot more tolerant if the wood pellets just show up on a ship and you don’t see the trees being cut and don’t see the forest being lost.”

Just like buying solar panels and batteries from China, where the coal power stations providing the energy to manufacture them are conveniently out of sight, and allowing China to gain a chokehold on the UK renewables sector.

The North Carolina story is worth reading in full.