I was disappointed, but not surprised, to witness at the 17th June Full Council meeting the current administration doubling down on the failing Net Zero policy. A policy entered into in 2019, Uncosted also confirmed during the meeting by Cllr Hills.
I wish to raise the following points:-
How was this policy implemented uncosted, therefore it follows void of a cost/benefit analysis? [Please respond].
During the meeting, it was revealed and acknowledged that the policy was implemented following a paltry 0.04% uptake in the public consultation. Less than 4 people considered that the Council should be involved. Why did it proceed [Please respond]?
Were the Gunning principles fully complied with? In particular, No.4 [Please respond]
Was the irony lost on Councillors that this paltry 0.04% figure is the same percentage of CO2 currently in the earth’s atmosphere (or was this rudimentary scientific fact not known by Councillors?) if, this was the case, this is a major concern given a policy with such far-reaching consequences both financially and societally).
The net zero policy was falsely based upon the presumption that CO2 is a pollutant and a driver of anthropogenic climate change, both of these statements are scientifically inaccurate.
If the Council believes differently, why was no evidence produced despite repeated requests at Full Council meetings. If you have this evidence please provide it.
Were the Milanovich cycles considered? [Please respond]
On the point raised of “silence being consent, the public has NOT been silent.
Both myself and members of the public have regularly attended the 6-monthly climate advisory board meetings, (on one occasion, extra chairs were required to accommodate the large number in attendance).
Public questions were raised on behalf of concerned residents at Full Council meetings held on 17.10.2023/16.04.2024/18.06.2024/15.10.2024.
On another point raised by Councillor Croxton, I ask why are “pressure groups” concerns of more importance to Councillors than residents?
It was clear from the leader’s responses to public questions that the Council had blindly followed the IPCC guidance without any due diligence or further research.
Does this action meet the Council’s Nolan principle obligations? particularly 1.3 below [Please respond]
“1.3 Objectivity
Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.”
At Full Council on 17/10/2023, Councillors were provided with a copy of the 53 page Clintel declaration. A declaration made by a global network of over 1,900 international scientists and professionals stating:-
“There is NO climate emergency…climate science should be less political, policies should be more scientific – to believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. Why was this vitally important document ignored was it dismissed as “Populism” by the current administration? [Please respond].
For the record, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a United Nations body.
During my question to Council on 16th April 2024 I implored Councillors to Google “We own the science” which, if they had done so, they would have heard United Nations Secretary Melissa Fleming making this shocking admission – also proudly stating they had partnered with Google to implement algorithm bias” in order to control the flow of information/the narrative (link below).
Is this conducive to independent scientific research or more a case of “follow orders/follow the money”?
On the point raised that “net zero will save residents money”, there is no evidence to support this assertion – 6 years in energy bills in the UK remain among the highest in the developed world, we are currently in a cost of living crisis, high energy costs detrimentally affect every aspect of an economy.
I refer you to the GBC Scrutiny Meeting Minutes of 6th March 2025, in which it is revealed at item 9 that the Battery Energy Storage System at Thames Way would not lower energy bills for residents. This has to be the first honest admission I have seen throughout the past 2 years of sitting through these painful “self-congratulatory back slapping” meetings.
On the point raised that money from “the government” relieves the burden on the local taxpayer, this is absurd surely councillors understand that working local residents pay into both central and local tax systems (double taxation) – it is not government money it is our money – there was absolutely no reason or logic behind this statement.
Thankfully, the tide has started to turn on the net-zero lunacy as hard reality sets in.
“Even the titans of global finance—like HSBC—are seeing the futility of this climate dogma and heading for the exits.
HSBC, one of the world’s largest banks, has just made a stunning move that exposes the cracks in the climate façade. On Friday, the London-based giant announced its withdrawal from the UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance, following the lead of 17 other top banks across the globe.
After years of grand promises and sluggish progress, even HSBC has ditched this costly charade, joining walkouts by Wall Street’s biggest names—Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley—and Canada’s “Big Six,”
[Perhaps “follow the money captured pseudoscience” will now wither on the vine enabling genuine independent science to rise from the ashes].
Meanwhile Pembrokeshire Council are rethinking their decision.
“Cllr Stoddart referred to low contribution from wind energy and expensive failed wave generation experiments that “ended up in the bottom of the sea.”
He added it was not possible to “de-carbonise the economy without damage to the poorest in society.”
The Net Zero experiment (carbon taxation system) was doomed to fail from the start it will result in net zero quality of life and rolling blackouts. I respectfully urge the Council to listen to the public, follow in Pembrokeshire Council’s footsteps and urgently review the original decision in light of new evidence.
If Councillors proceed to double down on the current trajectory, I am certain, that with the passage of time, the public voice will become ever louder as so eloquently highlighted by Cllr Harding.
I will end on my final point that Councillors who oppose their own party policies when they are wrong, or damaging their residents’ quality of life is the hallmark of an excellent Councillor to be commended not derided.
Politically charged tirades such as the one witnessed at this meeting is politics at its lowest ebb and one of the reasons why members of the public are becoming increasingly disenfranchised with the old uni-party. Thankfully, ever-increasing numbers are showing their disgust by giving them a “kick in the ballot box”.
Unfortunately, we may lose some excellent local Councillors at the hands of their leader’s at WEFminster’s dreadful decision-making, I do hope this will not be the case as it will be a loss for us all.
I look forward to hearing from Mr Burden with answers to my questions (highlighted in yellow). To all other Councillors thank you for taking the time to read this email.
I wrote my first article for Unity News Network on 30th December 2019, and I have been writing ever since – my library is now well in excess of 200 articles.
Alternative media is essential in these times of unprecedented censorship and mainstream bias, which has ramped up exponentially during the past 2 years. The overton window of “acceptable opinion” is growing every narrower.
Having a citizen’s log, cataloguing the twists and turns of life during these turbulent times is essential.
Thank you Unity News Network for allowing me a voice on your platform.
