{"id":451345,"date":"2026-06-20T11:03:05","date_gmt":"2026-06-20T18:03:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=451345"},"modified":"2026-06-20T11:03:07","modified_gmt":"2026-06-20T18:03:07","slug":"yet-another-climate-activist-masquerading-as-an-economist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=451345","title":{"rendered":"Yet Another Climate Activist Masquerading as an Economist"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From Tilak\u00b4s Substack<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Tilak Doshi<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last week, I wrote about I wrote about Tessa Khan<\/a>, funded by European and American philanthropists, who uses the courts to impose Net Zero policies voters have rejected at the ballot box. She spoke at an invitation-only gathering of politicians, journalists and policy figures assembled at Westminster Central Hall last November.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This week, I turn my attention to one of her colleagues who spoke to the same invitation-only gathering of over 1,200 politicians and business leaders for the so-called National Emergency Briefing<\/a> (NEB) \u2014 supposedly an \u201cexpert-led\u201d briefing to address the UK\u2019s \u201cclimate and energy crisis\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cbriefing\u201d event was supported by an array of organisations ranging from the National Trust and WWF to the National Education Union and the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds). Of the 10 featured speakers, each introduced as a leading expert in their field, the slot for \u201ceconomics\u201d was given to Angela Francis<\/a>, a self-styled \u201clow carbon economist\u201d and Director of Policy Solutions at WWF-UK. The audience, carefully selected, received her message with the reverence one might accord a scientific briefing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a pattern that should by now be familiar to anyone who follows the climate-industrial complex in the United Kingdom. A convener with activist credentials assembles a sympathetic audience, presents a line-up of credentialled speakers and proceeds to make policy advocacy sound like dispassionate expert testimony. The format \u2014 emergency briefing, Westminster \u2014 is chosen for its associations with urgency and authority. What it actually delivers is something rather different: a well-rehearsed set of green talking points dressed in the language of economics, presented to people who will not ask inconvenient questions because they have not been invited to do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The accountant turned green economist<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What are Francis\u2019s qualifications? Her biography, as it appears on the NEB website and elsewhere, follows a well-trodden path. She began her career as an accountant in the energy industry before pivoting into what she describes as \u201ceconomic development\u201d, working for the East of England Development Agency and the consultancy SQW on productivity and \u201clow-carbon growth\u201d. She served as regional economist and climate attach\u00e9 for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the Caribbean. She then became chief economist at Green Alliance<\/a>, a prominent environmental advocacy organisation, before moving to WWF, where she now leads on climate, trade and industrial policy. Francis \u2013 like her fellow travellers in the big government climate bandwagon Mariana Mazzucato<\/a> and Thomas Picketty<\/a> \u2014 operates in a familiar tradition: the economist-as-advocate whose output is less an analysis of trade-offs than a brief for a predetermined conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several things are worth noting about Francis\u2019s professional trajectory. First, the Green Alliance is not a research institution. It is a lobbying organisation whose explicit mission is to advocate green policies. Her title there was chief economist, but her role was to make \u201cthe economic case for a low carbon and circular economy\u201d \u2014 that is, to produce analysis in support of a conclusion that had already been reached. This is a species of work that often travels under the name of economics but one searches in vain for the principles of economics at work. The same is true of her current position at WWF, which is, whatever one thinks of its conservationist work, an advocacy organisation with a defined mission to advance Net Zero and nature-positive policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, her public biography reference does not include any graduate training in economic theory or quantitative methods. She has, over a 20-year career, worked at the intersection of advocacy and policy, with little economics in between. This does not disqualify her views from consideration. But it is worth holding in mind when she is introduced \u2014 and when she introduces herself \u2014 as an \u201ceconomics expert\u201d giving a \u201cbriefing\u201d to parliamentarians and business leaders at Westminster Central Hall.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bad arguments, examined<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let us examine what Francis actually said at the NEB, drawing on the published transcript of her remarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Her first major claim is that markets are, in her words, \u201cbroken\u201d because they \u201ctake for granted a stable climate, clean air, fresh water, pollinators\u201d \u2014 and that fixing this requires government to \u201cset new rules of the game\u201d. This is, on the face of it, a version of the standard Pigouvian argument about negative externalities: that pollution imposes costs on third parties not captured in market prices, and that corrective taxes or regulation can in principle address this. The argument is not wrong as far as it goes. Mainstream economics has for a century recognised that pollution constitutes a market failure, and that governments can legitimately intervene to price it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But Francis elides something important. The standard Pigouvian toolkit \u2014 targeted taxes on specific pollutants, tradeable emission permits, the correction of discrete negative externalities \u2014 is a very different thing from the wholesale rewriting of market rules to mandate a Net Zero economy. The former is orthodox economics; the latter is a dirigiste programme of industrial transformation whose costs and unintended consequences are, to put it mildly, not trivial. The rhetorical move \u2014 from \u2018markets have failures\u2019 to \u2018therefore government must redesign the entire economy in line with green objectives\u2019 \u2014 is not an exercise in economic analysis. It is a political programme dressed up as a logical deduction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, the claim that CO\u2082 is straightforwardly a \u2018pollutant\u2019 in the same category as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides or particulate matter deserves more scrutiny than Francis gives it. As both the Princeton physicist William Happer<\/a> and the CO\u2082 Coalition<\/a> have extensively documented, carbon dioxide is not toxic, does not damage lung tissue, and is \u2014 as any plant biologist will confirm \u2014 an essential input to photosynthesis. The economic case for taxing or restricting CO\u2082 rests on its hypothesied effect on global mean temperature over decadal timescales \u2014 a genuinely complex, highly uncertain and contested matter \u2014 not on any direct toxicological harm. Treating it as analogous to lead or mercury in the air reflects advocacy framing, not careful economic reasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On costs: the \u2018affordable\u2019 Net Zero<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Francis devotes considerable energy to rebutting what she calls the \u201cbad argument\u201d that the UK cannot afford Net Zero. Her central claim is that the investment required to stay on the Climate Change Committee\u2019s (CCC) balanced pathway amounts to approximately \u00a34 billion per year \u2014 roughly 0.2% of GDP \u2014 and that this cost is modest, largely fundable by the private sector, and \u201cpays back\u201d from 2041 onward. She also cites research from the Oxford Martin School and the Smith School to the effect that a rapid energy transition saves $12 trillion globally compared to staying on fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These figures deserve serious scrutiny, because they are far more contested than Francis implies. The CCC\u2019s own estimates of the cost of the Net Zero transition have been revised upward repeatedly. Analysis by David Turver<\/a> and others such as Dieter Helms<\/a> \u2013 often called Britain\u2019s leading energy economist \u2014 have argued that the full system costs of replacing dispatchable fossil fuel generation with intermittent renewables, including the necessary grid upgrades, backup capacity, storage and demand management, are substantially higher than official figures suggest. Germany<\/a>, Europe\u2019s largest economy and the country that pursued the green transition most aggressively in the previous decade, has seen industrial electricity prices rise to levels that have driven major manufacturers to shift production abroad or close domestic operations entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Oxford-Smith claim that \u2018faster is cheaper\u2019 deserves particular scepticism. This is a modelling result, and models are, as Francis herself acknowledges in passing, \u201csimplifications\u201d. They help answer specific questions, but they do not include everything. The specific model behind the $12 trillion figure \u2014 the FAST-Transition model<\/a> developed at Oxford \u2014 has been criticised for assuming away the system integration costs of a rapid renewable build-out: the costs of intermittency, of stranded assets, of supply chain bottlenecks, of the social disruption attendant on rapid structural change. The claim that faster transition is cheaper is precisely the kind of result that sounds counterintuitive \u2014 and that should therefore prompt the question: what has the model left out?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The contrast with the mainstream of academic climate economics is instructive. Bjorn Lomborg<\/a>, drawing on the work of Nobel laureate William Nordhaus and the integrated assessment models that Nordhaus pioneered, has consistently argued that the costs of aggressive near-term decarbonisation \u2014 particularly the 1.5\u00b0C and 2\u00b0C targets championed by the UN and the UK\u2019s CCC \u2014 substantially exceed the benefits when properly discounted over time. Nordhaus\u2019s own \u201coptimal\u201d carbon tax trajectory implies warming of around 3.5\u00b0C by the end of the century \u2014 well above the targets that Francis and the NEB treat as non-negotiable constraints. This is not fringe opinion: Nordhaus shared the 2018 Nobel Prize in Economics precisely for this work. The point is not that Nordhaus is certainly right and Francis certainly wrong. The point is that the academic literature contains serious, rigorous work pointing in a very different direction from the one Francis confidently sets out \u2014 and that literature goes entirely unacknowledged in her briefing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On inflation and living standards<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the most arresting claim in Francis\u2019s NEB talk is her assertion that the UK\u2019s post-2022 inflation crisis would have been significantly mitigated had the country decarbonised earlier. Specifically, she argues that inflation would have been 7% lower with earlier power sector decarbonisation, 9% lower without the fossil-fuel link in food prices via fertiliser, and 11% lower with earlier heat pump adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are extraordinary numbers. They would, if true, represent the most compelling argument for rapid decarbonisation imaginable: not merely that it is allegedly good for the environment in the long run, but that it would have saved ordinary British households from several years of real income decline. But the empirical record points the other way. The UK and Germany, which have invested most heavily in renewable energy, saw some of the sharpest energy price increases in Europe when Russian gas supplies were curtailed \u2014 not because they had too much fossil fuel in their systems, but because they had dismantled too much dispatchable backup capacity and remained, at the margin, dependent on the gas price to balance their grids. The high fixed costs of renewable systems do not insulate consumers from price shocks; they merely change the nature of the exposure. And the intermittency problem \u2014 which Francis does not address \u2014 means that as renewable penetration rises, so does the need for expensive grid balancing services, ultimately paid for by consumers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NEB: emergency format, activist content<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NEB itself merits a word. It was founded and is run by the brothers Simon and Nick Oldridge, whom the organisation\u2019s website describes as \u201cclimate funders and communicators with a background in business\u201d. It is supported by WWF \u2014 Angela Francis\u2019s employer \u2014 as well as the RSPB, the National Trust and a host of other environmental and civil society organisations. Its stated aim is \u201cto inform every MP about the crisis\u201d and to persuade the Government to stage a primetime televised emergency briefing on climate. An Early Day Motion was tabled in the House of Commons in May 2026 endorsing the NEB\u2019s findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is not a research institution. It is a lobbying initiative with the trappings of an expert briefing. The invocation of \u201cemergency\u201d is not a scientific judgement but a rhetorical choice \u2014 one designed to foreclose debate by suggesting that questioning the analysis is tantamount to recklessness in the face of imminent catastrophe. The format \u2014 ten experts, Westminster Central Hall, invited audience of the great and good \u2014 is engineered to produce precisely the kind of impression that Francis\u2019s economics slot is designed to reinforce: that the case for rapid, comprehensive, government-directed green transformation is so overwhelming that it requires only briefing, not debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is always Government\u2019s job, as Francis herself concedes, to distinguish between the overall public interest and the interests of those lobbying most loudly. The NEB is lobbying, done with considerable sophistication. Independent scrutiny of its economic claims \u2014 the kind of critical engagement that a genuine parliamentary or academic forum would provide \u2014 is notably absent from its format. This is a design choice, not an oversight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A note on epistemic humility<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the NEB\u2019s economics slot does not offer is a serious engagement with those trade-offs. Francis presents a series of large numbers \u2014 \u00a34 billion per year, $12 trillion saved, 0.2% of GDP \u2014 as if they were established facts rather than modelling outputs that are driven by implausible assumptions. And now we learn that the IPCC itself has ditched<\/a> its extreme scenario (cast as \u201cbusiness as usual\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She dismisses the counterarguments \u2014 that Net Zero is unaffordable, that the UK cannot act alone, that transition costs will raise the cost of living \u2014 as \u201cbad arguments\u201d and dispenses with each in a few sentences, without engaging with the substantial body of academic work that supports them. The audience at Westminster Central Hall was not in a position to push back. Parliament, the media and the public should be. The UK has no shortage of genuine economic expertise. It is past time to insist that it be brought to bear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A version of this article was published in the Daily Sceptic https:\/\/dailysceptic.org\/2026\/06\/19\/yet-another-climate-activist-masquerading-as-an-economist\/<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This week, I turn my attention to one of her colleagues who spoke to the same invitation-only gathering of over 1,200 politicians and business leaders for the so-called National Emergency Briefing (NEB) \u2014 supposedly an \u201cexpert-led\u201d briefing to address the UK\u2019s \u201cclimate and energy crisis\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":451351,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_seo_schema_type":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_wpcom_ai_launchpad_first_post":false,"_jetpack_hide_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_featured_image_duplicate_dismissed":0,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691843735,691824583,691820752,691822002,691839289,691843734,691818154,691827996],"class_list":["post-451345","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-climate-and-energy-crisis","tag-climate-industrial-complex","tag-economics","tag-green-blob","tag-green-lobby","tag-national-emergency-briefing-neb","tag-net-zero","tag-united-kingdom","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1TpL","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":283654,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=283654","url_meta":{"origin":451345,"position":0},"title":"COP28 in Dubai: A Crossroads of Rhetoric and Reality","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/17\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Expo City Dubai Where Aspirations Meet Realities\u2026Well, COP28 President-Designate Dr Sultan Al Jaber is also chief executive of ADNOC, the national oil and gas company of Abu Dhabi. From Watts Up With That? In a recent article by Tilak Doshi on Forbes, the convoluted saga of climate negotiations is meticulously\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"climate alarmism\"","block_context":{"text":"climate alarmism","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-alarmism"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0fb-expo-city-.jpg?fit=1200%2C631&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0fb-expo-city-.jpg?fit=1200%2C631&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0fb-expo-city-.jpg?fit=1200%2C631&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0fb-expo-city-.jpg?fit=1200%2C631&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0fb-expo-city-.jpg?fit=1200%2C631&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324431,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=324431","url_meta":{"origin":451345,"position":1},"title":"Legal Absurdities in Climate Policy: A Critical Review of Tilak Doshi\u2019s Analysis","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/27\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In his recent Forbes article,\u00a0Tilak Doshi criticizes a landmark ruling by Europe\u2019s highest human rights court, which mandates countries to protect their citizens from the consequences of climate change.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0njmptva.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0njmptva.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0njmptva.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0njmptva.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0njmptva.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":418550,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=418550","url_meta":{"origin":451345,"position":2},"title":"The Resilience of the Church of Climate","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/25\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In the aftermath of the UN\u2019s COP30 climate summit in Belem, Brazil, several commentators have claimed that the age of climate alarmism may finally be fraying at the edges. The\u00a0Wall Street Journal\u00a0concluded that Europe\u2019s green energy policies slashed emissions but at the cost of crippling the economy. PJ Media\u2019s Rick\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"\u201cenergy dominance\u201d agenda\"","block_context":{"text":"\u201cenergy dominance\u201d agenda","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=energy-dominance-agenda"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQNM-UQmLRt49fvVoeW_57K4rBygnnM-yYeGLWt6J9_wKkKV__sFYTjGF4PlaYhoJW5hz7T7Yf0m93UKRAwnxXX946JQfrNtwGKqZb5cjiz7HxjDpSYY2dyv0lyM39-3JySqEcYqxAU67-bSHqxconPt5aMz7A.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQNM-UQmLRt49fvVoeW_57K4rBygnnM-yYeGLWt6J9_wKkKV__sFYTjGF4PlaYhoJW5hz7T7Yf0m93UKRAwnxXX946JQfrNtwGKqZb5cjiz7HxjDpSYY2dyv0lyM39-3JySqEcYqxAU67-bSHqxconPt5aMz7A.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQNM-UQmLRt49fvVoeW_57K4rBygnnM-yYeGLWt6J9_wKkKV__sFYTjGF4PlaYhoJW5hz7T7Yf0m93UKRAwnxXX946JQfrNtwGKqZb5cjiz7HxjDpSYY2dyv0lyM39-3JySqEcYqxAU67-bSHqxconPt5aMz7A.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQNM-UQmLRt49fvVoeW_57K4rBygnnM-yYeGLWt6J9_wKkKV__sFYTjGF4PlaYhoJW5hz7T7Yf0m93UKRAwnxXX946JQfrNtwGKqZb5cjiz7HxjDpSYY2dyv0lyM39-3JySqEcYqxAU67-bSHqxconPt5aMz7A.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQNM-UQmLRt49fvVoeW_57K4rBygnnM-yYeGLWt6J9_wKkKV__sFYTjGF4PlaYhoJW5hz7T7Yf0m93UKRAwnxXX946JQfrNtwGKqZb5cjiz7HxjDpSYY2dyv0lyM39-3JySqEcYqxAU67-bSHqxconPt5aMz7A.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":285543,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=285543","url_meta":{"origin":451345,"position":3},"title":"Forbes: Climate Policy Hurts the Poor More than Climate Change","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/28\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Africa\u2019s poor will be hardest hit not by \u2018climate change\u2019 but by the policies pushed by the West\u2019s green lobby. African forests and drinking water will diminish further. From Watts Up With That? Essay by Eric Worrall Have we all just entered a parallel universe where mainstream media publishes articles\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Africa\"","block_context":{"text":"Africa","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=africa"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0egyptian-farming.jpg?fit=1200%2C687&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0egyptian-farming.jpg?fit=1200%2C687&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0egyptian-farming.jpg?fit=1200%2C687&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0egyptian-farming.jpg?fit=1200%2C687&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0egyptian-farming.jpg?fit=1200%2C687&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":413886,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=413886","url_meta":{"origin":451345,"position":4},"title":"Trump’s Eisenhower Moment: COP30 and the End of Europe’s Green Agenda","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/19\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"As the world\u2019s climate delegations gather in Bel\u00e9m for COP30 (November 10th-21st), they do so under a very different geopolitical sky. The United States has withdrawn from the UN\u2019s climate process altogether, and its diplomats have just led a successful rebellion at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to block a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"\u201cNet-Zero Framework\u201d (NZF)\"","block_context":{"text":"\u201cNet-Zero Framework\u201d (NZF)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=net-zero-framework-nzf"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQO0px_NxE2xf9Ns9PKwHntoHzd_XOZmApiDWTGcCZHDi50IGO0qFzG1SjmdpEc947bBA8woV-Cw7omkwYZEPadsIvuYJbSYMLZFU62SA_pdOtBCHOpIZ3Pvjh6JdWA-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C755&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQO0px_NxE2xf9Ns9PKwHntoHzd_XOZmApiDWTGcCZHDi50IGO0qFzG1SjmdpEc947bBA8woV-Cw7omkwYZEPadsIvuYJbSYMLZFU62SA_pdOtBCHOpIZ3Pvjh6JdWA-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C755&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQO0px_NxE2xf9Ns9PKwHntoHzd_XOZmApiDWTGcCZHDi50IGO0qFzG1SjmdpEc947bBA8woV-Cw7omkwYZEPadsIvuYJbSYMLZFU62SA_pdOtBCHOpIZ3Pvjh6JdWA-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C755&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQO0px_NxE2xf9Ns9PKwHntoHzd_XOZmApiDWTGcCZHDi50IGO0qFzG1SjmdpEc947bBA8woV-Cw7omkwYZEPadsIvuYJbSYMLZFU62SA_pdOtBCHOpIZ3Pvjh6JdWA-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C755&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQO0px_NxE2xf9Ns9PKwHntoHzd_XOZmApiDWTGcCZHDi50IGO0qFzG1SjmdpEc947bBA8woV-Cw7omkwYZEPadsIvuYJbSYMLZFU62SA_pdOtBCHOpIZ3Pvjh6JdWA-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C755&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":300870,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=300870","url_meta":{"origin":451345,"position":5},"title":"Climate Cultists at The Guardian: This Time, It\u2019s Evil Propane","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/09\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Reporters at The Guardian never tire of demonizing fossil fuels. In its latest salvo, the newspaper \u2013 \u00a0funded in part by the green-billionaire\u00a0Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation\u00a0\u2013 published a January 25\u00a0hit piece\u00a0on the Propane Education and Research Council.\u00a0","rel":"","context":"In \"climate activism\"","block_context":{"text":"climate activism","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-activism"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/00AdobeStock_461022337-2.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/00AdobeStock_461022337-2.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/00AdobeStock_461022337-2.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/00AdobeStock_461022337-2.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/00AdobeStock_461022337-2.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/0-Yet-Another-Climate-Activist-Masquerading-as-an-Economist.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/451345","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=451345"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/451345\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":451352,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/451345\/revisions\/451352"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/451351"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=451345"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=451345"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=451345"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}