Category: Climate Science Denial

  • What climate change? Trump’s EPA eliminates power plant pollution limits

    Spread the love

    Article by Chauncey K. Robinson republished from Peoples World under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

    Donald Trump has gone on record calling climate change a “scam” and “con job.”| People’s World graphic

    WASHINGTON—Just weeks after the United Nations Environment Programme released its grim report concerning climate change and the future of humanity, the Trump administration has repealed pollution limits on fossil fuel power plants. This rule change is happening despite the fact that power plants are the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions—the very same emissions scientists and climate activists say are the cause of global warming. 

    The reversal was announced by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin at the G20 Energy Abundance Ministerial Meeting on Sept. 14 in Houston. He claimed the move “delivers reliable and affordable energy in the largest power sector deregulatory action in U.S. history,” and that it is “expected to unleash the full potential of America’s vast energy resources, including coal and natural gas.” 

    Zeldin alleged that former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama implemented “a war on coal to destroy reliable and affordable energy” and boasted that the Trump administration “has come to protect American energy.” 

    The administrator’s comments continue a pattern where the EPA, under a president who said climate change is the “greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world,” has prioritized exalting the fossil fuel industry and thwarting the growth of clean energy initiatives such as solar, wind, and hydropower. 

    In February, Trump announced the official termination of the EPA’s 2009 landmark determination that greenhouse gases warm the planet and threaten the health and welfare of those who inhabit it. In 2025, the president referred to oil as “liquid gold” and created the National Energy Dominance Council as a means to expand U.S. fossil fuel and energy production.

    Doug Burgum, who serves as secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and chairs Trump’s National Energy Dominance Council, stood alongside Zeldin during the announcement on power plants. He claimed that the EPA’s repeal of pollution rules would save Americans “hundreds of millions of dollars” and put an end to “the Biden administration’s disastrous Green New Scam policies.” 

    The EPA’s lofty claim of delivering $300+ billion in savings to Americans might sound appealing in the middle of an affordability crisis, but independent researchers and advocates question whether Trump’s EPA is making false promises and ignoring the science.

    Trump’s EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin, has fought to lift almost all controls on toxic chemicals that harm workers and the public. | AP

    While Zeldin and his colleagues claim that during periods of peak electricity demand coal and natural gas continue to “keep the lights on,” recent reports show that coal is actually driving higher utility costs for consumers. The non-partisan think tank Energy Innovation noted that coal power was 28% more expensive in 2024 than in 2021 and that “coal’s already poor economics are getting worse as aging plants make coal power more expensive.” The organization also referred to another study that showed “coal plants were more expensive to continue operating compared to replacement with local wind or solar.” 

    In nearly every part of the United States, people are seeing a rapid rise in their energy costs lately. Electricity and home energy bills have risen faster than inflation—climbing an estimated 21% to 30% over a three to four year period. The quick jump for power bills has been attributed to a number of influences. 

    The top two reasons experts point to are, first, the high energy demand of AI data centers straining existing energy capacity (data centers which Trump champions) and, second, the extreme weather of hotter summers and freezing winters resulting from the climate change that the president doesn’t believe in. 

    In a press release announcing the power plant pollution rule elimination, the EPA maintained that “models” show greenhouse gas emissions from power plants have no “material impact on global climate change.” The claim provided no details on what models the agency was referring to or what science it relied on to make such an assessment.

    Environmental advocates and scientists paint a different picture, one where continued pollution will impose detrimental costs for millions, both medically and financially. 

    Resources for the Future, an independent nonprofit research institution based in Washington, asserts that any savings made from the EPA’s continued deregulation of fossil fuels will be surpassed by the health damages many people will face as a result of increased emissions. The organization estimates that the free flow of power plant air pollution will increase health issues among the public, bringing additional health costs of up to $476 billion.  

    Advocates, political leaders, and medical professionals are also sounding the alarm on what they see as the immense danger the latest EPA move poses to working people. 

    “The administration is once again green-lighting massive corporate pollution with no regard to how it will harm our environment, climate, or Hoosiers struggling to afford their daily lives,” said Robyn Skuya-Boss, director of the Sierra Club Hoosier Chapter in Indiana. Last year, that state’s coal plants released more than 5.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

    “These protections have been essential guardrails to improving the health and safety of our communities from soot, smog, and toxic air pollutants. This dirty and dangerous rollback comes at the same time the administration is using illegal bailout orders to keep two of Indiana’s coal plants online at Hoosiers’ expense rather than close as planned in December 2025. 

    “Over and over again, the Trump administration demonstrates it cares more about forcing Indiana to burn coal than it does the health and welfare of Hoosiers,” Skuya-Boss asserted. 

    Sierra Club Chief Program Officer Holly Bender told the press that Trump’s EPA actions were a “full-throated climate denial while the climate crisis happens in real time.” The move is a “shocking betrayal of the American public,” she declared. 

    “While wildfires rage, floods devastate communities, and families struggle to afford skyrocketing electricity bills and insurance premiums, the Trump administration is handing the fossil fuel industry a license to keep polluting,” Bender said.

    American Lung Association President and CEO Harold Wimmer noted in a statement that leaving the rules in place would have “resulted in other immediate health benefits,” such as reducing emissions of harmful oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter from coal-fired power plants, preventing “1,200 premature deaths in 2035.”

    Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey said, “American families and businesses will pay for President Trump’s reckless failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. By giving power plants a free pass to pump industrial carbon pollution into our communities, the EPA will saddle people with the bill for more expensive electricity, respiratory illnesses, and climate change-fueled disasters.” 

    The governor added, “Nobody wants this, and nobody can afford this,” saying the Trump administration has lost all credibility on energy and that the American public can’t afford more “endless wars driving up gas prices” and further reliance on “dirty coal plants.” 

    Rep. Adelita S. Grijalva, D-Ariz., asserted that the president and his administration is “once again prioritizing corporate profits over lower utility bills and the health of working families.”

    Though the Trump administration is wasting no time in moving forward with its fossil fuel initiatives, the fight for clean air may not be over just yet. Just days after Zedlin’s announcement, a number of organizations have come forward to sue the administration to stop the rule elimination. 

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Clean Air Council, Clean Wisconsin, and the Environmental Defense Fund filed suit, alleging that the EPA was failing in its “legal responsibility to protect health and the environment.” 

    The federal climate legal director at NRDC, Meredith Hankins, wrote in a statement:  “The Clean Air Act and Supreme Court precedent demand that the EPA address climate pollution from the largest industrial source in the nation. The EPA’s legal reasoning is fatally flawed, so we are going to court.”

    No paywalls at People’s World

    We hope you appreciated this article. At People’s World, we believe news and information should be free and accessible to all, but we need your help. Our journalism is free of corporate influence and paywalls because we are totally reader-supported. Only you, our readers and supporters, make this possible. If you enjoy reading People’s World and the stories we bring you, please support our work by donating or becoming a monthly sustainer today. Thank you!

    Article by Chauncey K. Robinson republished from Peoples World under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

    Donald Trump sings and dances, says that it's fun to kill everyone ... unless he gets distracted or falls asleep.
    Donald Trump sings and dances, says that it’s fun to kill everyone … unless he gets distracted or falls asleep.
    Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes' concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country's economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
    Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
    Climate science denier Donald Trump confirms that he knows nothing about democracy and that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateering.
    Climate science denier Donald Trump confirms that he knows nothing about democracy and that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateering.

  • Busting the myths: five lies you’ve been told about net zero

    Spread the love

    Article by Grace Murray republished from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

    Is net zero pushing up our bills? Ruining British industry? A worthless target? We weighed these claims up against the facts

    “This is what climate change looks like, here and now,” Andy Burnham said last month, reflecting on a summer of catastrophic fires, drought and heatwave after heatwave. People were left without water, crops failed and emergency services had their busiest summer ever.

    And yet with disaster on our doorsteps – and the government now recommending we stockpile in preparation for future extreme weather – there remains a sustained opposition to the UK’s plan to tackle it all: net zero.

    In fact, many have doubled down on “ditching net zero” this summer. And in some fringes this is accompanied by claims that our changing climate has nothing to do with human activity. Let’s be clear: this goes against the overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific study.

    We’ve already reported on how this sort of straight-up climate denial is creeping back into UK politics. But what about the softer arguments against net zero, those that appeal to people’s anxieties about the cost of living, job losses and the supposed need for pragmatism?

    Many of these are also based on fallacies and falsehoods – some of them warping the scientific concept of net zero into something different altogether. Let’s dig into some of the most common myths out there.

    ‘Net zero is a made-up term’

    The UK became one of the first major economies to bring net zero into national law in 2019, under Theresa May’s Conservative government. In a nutshell it means reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 100%, from 1990 levels, by 2050. The “net” part is that some emissions may still exist but are balanced out by removing emissions through carbon sinks, such as tree planting, or technology.

    It’s a legal commitment enshrined in an amendment to the 2008 Climate Change Act, and it is based on rigorous climate science.

    And yet one of the more common narratives online is that net zero is some arbitrary idea, a figure plucked out of thin air to make us poorer, colder, and plunder our economy. Reform MPs regularly refer to “net stupid zero” and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has called it “political fiction”. Conservative MP Andrew Bowie, who acted as May’s parliamentary private secretary when the target was brought in said in an interview with Politico last year: “What’s quite clear is that the setting of arbitrary targets with no clear plan on how to deliver them does not work for the country.”

    Professor Myles Allen from Oxford University is one of the leading scientists on net zero, and has worked on the need for a finite carbon budget for over 20 years. “When I hear politicians saying, ‘I’m not a climate denier, I’m a net zero denier’, that doesn’t make any sense,” he told us. “The implication of that, obviously, is, ‘I’m comfortable with the world warming forever.’”

    Key fact: Net zero by 2050 is a legal commitment, rooted in physics and atmospheric science, based on a finite carbon budget to stay within 2 degrees of warming.

    Net zero is sending our energy bills through the roof’

    Energy bills are extremely high, and set to rise further next month when the price cap increases. We are all feeling this. And many – including Reform in its election manifesto and Restore Britain’s energy policy paper – blame net zero for pushing up prices and “crippling our economy”.

    But the main culprit has nothing to do with net zero.

    Wholesale gas prices – the sums paid by our suppliers when they buy gas in bulk – have skyrocketed since the Iran war. In the last year, they have more than doubled. And our bills, which include a unit cost based on that wholesale price, have risen accordingly. Depending on where you live and the tariff you’re on, you’ll be paying around 7p per kilowatt-hour this September.

    But what about electricity – surely that’s unaffected by price shocks in the gas industry?

    This is where a concept called “marginal pricing” comes in. It’s a principle of all commodity markets, and it’s where the last available technology sets the price for what all energy suppliers receive. So if all of the UK’s energy demand is met by renewables suppliers (the cheapest option), it’s renewables setting the price. But if renewables aren’t being offered on the markets, or if demand is high, then it’s more expensive options – like gas – that set the wholesale electricity price. (Analysis from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit earlier this year found that wind power had reduced electricity prices by over 30%.)

    The last part of the bill is the standing charge. This covers network operating costs, the maintenance of infrastructure, debt recovery and VAT. It also includes costs for some government policies such as social or environmental schemes – but this is a small percentage. So yes, our standing charges are helping pay for net zero. But they are mainly going towards upgrading pipelines and cables or claiming back unpaid bills. And they tend to make up between a fifth and a third of the total bill.

    Adam Berman, policy director at Energy UK, the trade body for energy companies, explains that network costs have hugely increased because “successive governments have made the decision to finance our electricity infrastructure entirely through bills”. This is instead of “some balance between bills and general taxation which is what almost everyone else across the OECD does”. And it is this difference which makes our electricity bills more expensive than gas when you compare your two bills side by side.

    However, he said: “If we hadn’t invested, in five or 10 years we would be close to the water sector, in that you’d have to be doing massive levels of investment”.

    Key fact: Sky-rocketing energy bills are due to extremely high gas prices, which make both gas and electricity more expensive.

    ‘Net zero is destroying British industry’

    Jobs are being lost in the UK’s oil and gas sector in the North Sea, and industries like steel have taken a hammering in recent decades. Reform and the Conservatives have put this down to net zero.

    While it is true that the oil and gas industry reports staggering job losses – unions say 1,000 direct and indirect jobs are being lost each month – the reasons are complex. For a start, production in the North Sea has largely been in decline since 1999. Many of the wells and basins are reaching maturity, meaning that the fossil fuels are harder and more costly to extract. And as production has waned, so have jobs. (In fact, new research has shown that even in the small windows when production increased, jobs still declined.)

    Losing your job can be a traumatic experience. But there is cause for hope: a recent government analysis found that oil and gas workers’ skills will be in high demand in critical sectors including clean power, construction, defence, advanced manufacturing and life sciences. It found that around 70% of oil and gas workers are already employed in occupations identified as a priority for these sectors. (For more on North Sea oil myths see Carbon Brief’s excellent analysis.)

    On the other side, jobs in the UK’s renewable energy sector are growing – and have topped 145,000 for the first time according to a recent report.

    Key fact: Oil and gas production in the North Sea has been in decline long before Net Zero, and jobs are declining too. However, renewables jobs are growing, and oil and gas skills are highly sought after in other industries.

    ‘The UK achieving net zero would make no difference anyway’

    The UK’s carbon emissions have been in overall decline for decades and now account for less than 1% of the global total.

    There are many variations on this myth: from “How will it make any difference?” to “Why should we make an effort when we aren’t as bad as other countries?” Rishi Sunak said it when he was prime minister in 2023. And Reform MP Lee Anderson last year asked in Parliament: “If the UK went net zero tomorrow, by how much would it reduce the Earth’s temperature by?”

    Less than 1% does sound very low. However, we are also the 22nd highest emitter in the world; there are over 160 other countries with lower emissions than us.

    And if you add together all the countries accounting for less than 2% of emissions, it comes to just under half the global total. If all of them took the “Why bother?” approach, it would write off our chances of a net zero world.

    It’s also important to note that while China, the US and India make up the top three (with 26%, 11% and 8% respectively) this doesn’t tell the full story when it comes to emissions per person. China is the 35th highest country for emissions per capita, way behind the US and all the petrostates. The UK is 83rd, putting us roughly in the middle.

    Nor does the 1% figure take into account historic emissions. England was among the first countries to industrialise. Our emissions have risen since the mid-1800s, while other countries’ did not until closer to the end of the century. When you look at historic cumulative emissions from 1750, the UK is the fifth worst offender.

    A final caveat: when looking at global emissions the aviation and shipping industries are not included. They are grouped together like a separate country and according to 2024 data count for just over 3% of global emissions. So flights taken by British people don’t count towards the UK’s reported emissions. And British people take a relatively high number of flights.

    If anything, the 1% figure is obscuring the fact that the UK is in fact an outsized contributor to global emissions. A net zero UK would make a huge difference to the world.

    (None of this is to mention the simple argument that we have a moral duty to clean up after ourselves, regardless of the size of the mess – as summarised by this caller to LBC).

    Key fact: The UK is a lower emitting country at less than 1% of global emissions. However there are over 160 low emitting countries and if everyone gave up on net zero that’s around 42% of global emissions.

    ‘Climate change is happening. Let’s just accept it’

    Climate change is certainly happening. Forecasters warn of a “super” El Niño into 2027, with droughts, flash floods and extreme heat likely to get worse.

    And yet some instruct us to simply look on the bright side and adapt to the changing world. “When it’s a bit warm, let’s enjoy it,” said Reform’s Richard Tice last month. “And if it means that English wine and sparkling wine gets better and better, fantastic.” A fortnight earlier, Sunday Telegraph editor Allister Heath had written a column titled: “Britain can’t stop climate change. Let’s just embrace a Mediterranean lifestyle.”

    Pallavi Sethi, a researcher into climate misinformation at the LSE’s Grantham Institute, described the suggestion that we should simply accept climate change and scrap net zero as “dangerous and misleading”.

    Reform’s Richard Tice told a press conference that there is ‘no evidence’ net zero would stop climate changeOli Scarff / AFP via Getty

    At Jordan Peterson’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in London, and most recently Reform’s party conference in Birmingham, participants have raised the need to adopt more air conditioning, like the US.

    It is true that we need more money to be spent on adaptation. The Climate Change Committee estimates that we need investments of around £11bn per year of both public and private investment to adapt homes, hospitals, infrastructure and many industries for a changing climate. A recent report states that “the UK was built for a climate that no longer exists today”.

    Sethi told us: “Accepting that climate change is happening while giving up on efforts to limit further warming means accepting greater risks, more damage, as well as higher costs in the years ahead.”

    However this is not an “either/or” scenario, and increasing temperatures lay bare the increased inequality in the UK. Some people can afford to adapt where they live, installing air con or heat pumps, or planting trees in their garden. Others cannot: they do not have the money, or the agency over Council property or a landlord’s private home. Enjoying England’s vineyards is not for the many.

    Key fact: The fact that the climate crisis is already here doesn’t mean we can’t still mitigate it.

    Reporter: Grace Murray
    Deputy Editor: Chrissie Giles
    Editor: Franz Wild
    Production Editor: Alex Hess
    Fact checker: Lydia Morrish

    The Bureau has a number of funders, a full list of which can be found here. None of our funders have any influence over editorial decisions or output.

    Article by Grace Murray republished from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

    Donald Trump urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
    Donald Trump urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
    Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
    Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
    UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham says that he's going to permit the Jackdaw and Rosebank North Sea fossil fuel projects. He urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him
    UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham says that he’s going to permit the Jackdaw and Rosebank North Sea fossil fuel projects. He urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. The proof is in the pudding.
  • A Tiny 3% Tax on Global Billionaires Could Save 30 Million Lives by 2030: Lancet Study

    Spread the love

    Article by Brad Reed republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

    Guests including Mark Zuckerberg, Lauren Sanchez, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai and Elon Musk attend the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump in the US Capitol Rotunda on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. 
    (Photo by Julia Demaree Nikhinson – Pool/Getty Images)

    “With donor countries facing growing indebtedness and increasingly reallocating resources towards military spending, funding humanitarian assistance via the taxation of large fortunes was one of the most viable strategies.”

    With international aid programs facing an unprecedented cash crunch thanks in large part to foreign aid cuts ordered by US President Donald Trump, a recent study published The Lancet suggests that taxing the ultrarich would be the simplest way to plug funding gaps faced by crucial life-saving programs.

    Specifically, the peer-reviewed study found that a hitting the world’s billionaires with a 3% wealth tax would raise enough money to save up to 29.5 million lives in the world’s most vulnerable populations over the next four years leading into 2030.

    RECOMMENDED…

    President Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social platform a map showing the US flag over not only the United States but also Canada, Greenland, Iceland, the Caribbean, Mexico, and multiple countries in Central America.​

    ‘Absolutely Bonkers’ and ‘Unacceptable’: Trump Posts Map Showing US Takeovers of Other Nations

    US-TRUMP-9/11-CEREMONY

    ‘Stolen Valor’: Trump’s Fabricated 9/11 Story Draws Immediate Scorn

    Lucio Exposito, senior economist of the study and researcher at the ICESI School of Economics and University of East Anglia School of Global Development, told Euronews that a global wealth tax was the most plausible way to undo the damage done by international aid cuts, many of which were caused by billionaire SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2025 under the direct orders of Trump.

    “With donor countries facing growing indebtedness and increasingly reallocating resources towards military spending,” Exposito explained, “funding humanitarian assistance via the taxation of large fortunes was one of the most viable strategies.”

    The study’s introduction notes that wealth inequality has reached unprecedented heights in recent years, growing especially acute in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    “Today, the top 10% of the global population owns approximately 75% of global wealth, while the bottom 50% holds only 2%, with absolute income inequality steadily increasing over the past three decades,” the study explains. “Moreover, the wealthiest 0.002% of the global population… controls an estimated $37.1 trillion in global wealth, surpassing the gross domestic product of the world’s largest economy—the USA.”

    Even as the world’s richest people have seen their wealth grow by bounds, official development assistance (ODA) to the Global South has been slashed significantly.

    According to a study from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released earlier this year, ODA spending in 2025 fell by 23% compared to 2024, with the US responsible for 75% of the global decline.

    A 2025 study published by The Lancet estimated that the elimination of USAID would lead to 14 million additional deaths worldwide by 2030.

    Article by Brad Reed republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

    dizzy: Tax the climate-destroying parasites out of existence. Why should anyone be so rich that they can donate £36M to Farage’s Reform Ltd company to destroy the planet?

    Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes' concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country's economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
    Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
    Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
    Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
  • Airlines should pay for CO2 removal if Heathrow expands, say climate advisers

    Spread the love

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/sep/16/heathrow-airport-should-pay-co2-removal-expand-climate-advisers

    Heathrow airport wants to build a third runway and new terminals. Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters

    Climate Change Committee says government cannot expand airport without requiring aviation industry to clean up its emissions

    Heathrow airport should be allowed to expand only if airlines pay for the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the government’s climate advisers have said.

    Nigel Topping, the chair of the CCC, said: “The government cannot expand Heathrow airport without requiring the aviation industry to clean up its emissions. Therefore, the government should legislate policies that require the aviation industry to fully address all of their emissions by 2050, either directly or by purchasing engineered removals. The polluter-pays principle must apply.”

    But campaigners rejected the CCC’s plan of relying on nascent technologies to wipe out the impact of an expansion that would commit the UK to much higher emissions for decades, and called on ministers to halt all airport expansion.

    Tony Bosworth, campaigner at Friends of the Earth, accused the CCC of “pulling its punches”, pointing to recent research by the Tyndall Centre that found SAF and carbon removals were unproven and unlikely to ramp up in time to the extent needed to justify airport expansion.

    “The CCC should have made it crystal clear: there is no plausible way to expand Heathrow without wrecking the UK’s climate targets,” he said.

    Frequent flying is overwhelming skewed towards the wealthy. In any year, only about half of people in England take a flight abroad, while about 80% of all flights abroad were taken by people who took two or more flights – about a quarter of the population. Frequent flyers – those who took five or more return flights abroad in 2024 – made up only 5% of the population, but accounted for a third of all flights.

    Those in the highest income group took 38% of all flights abroad – four times as many flights as those in the lowest income group, according to the National Travel Survey of England in 2024.

    See the original article at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/sep/16/heathrow-airport-should-pay-co2-removal-expand-climate-advisers

  • Spread the love

    Over an hour of video, I much prefer far shorter videos but that’s life. You can listen to it instead of watching it of course, get on with something else as it’s on, pause it and come back to it …

    I featured a different video with Aaron Bastani from Novara Media on climate which was excellent. That video dealt with the physical realities of climate change while this one deals much more with the politics, how the North Sea has been drained and any new fossil fuels will be sold on the global market with negligible benefit to the UK, climate denial, etc.

    Donald Trump urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
    Donald Trump urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
    Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him and his Deputy Richard Tice. He says that Reform UK has received £Millions and £Millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
    Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him and his Deputy Richard Tice. He says that Reform UK has received £Millions and £Millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
    UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham says that he's going to permit the Jackdaw and Rosebank North Sea fossil fuel projects. He urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him
    UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham says that he’s going to permit the Jackdaw and Rosebank North Sea fossil fuel projects. He urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him