British agency criticized after telling millions of citizens not to heat their homes at night to reduce emissions



British bureaucrats, much like those in the United States and other Western countries, appear keen on further compromising citizens' quality of life in hopes of arresting ever-changing weather patterns, which some alarmists continue to fearfully and dogmatically refer to as "climate change."

While many so-called "green" initiatives aimed at sweeping the proverbial waves back into the sea have gone relatively unchallenged in recent years, the U.K. appears to have gone too far with one of its agency's latest recommendations.

The U.K.'s Climate Change Committee, an independent statutory body established under the 2008 Climate Change Act and tasked with hectoring the nation over emissions targets, has urged millions of families not to heat their homes at night, reported the Telegraph.

In its "Sixth Carbon Budget" paper advising Parliament on the "volume of greenhouse gases the UK can emit during the period 2033-2037," the CCC, which sets legally binding limits, implored households with electric-powered heating systems, including heat pumps, to shut off their radiators in the evening.

"There is significant potential to deliver emissions savings, just by changing the way we use our homes," said the report. "It is possible to pre-heat ahead of peak times. This enables access to cheaper tariffs which reflect the reduced costs associated with producing power off-peak and reducing requirements for network reinforcement to manage peak loads."

The Telegraph reported that the CCC has further insisted that, as of 2033, all newly built homes should be constructed to accommodate pre-heating.

A spokesman for the CCC stressed that "[s]mart heating of homes like this also makes the best possible use of the grid and supports greater use of cheap renewable generation."

What to some might come off as coercive social engineering, the CCC simply calls "behaviour change."

Similar proposals, which in practice look like wartime rationing, have been advanced and executed in Gov. Gavin Newsom's California. However, in the case of California, the Independent System Operator had to call upon consumers to ration power because the state's shift to renewable energy has left it with an unstable power grid and sporadic blackouts.

While advertised as a way to save households money, the proposal that Britons "pre-heat" their homes earlier in the day then watch their breaths at night has been met with significant criticism, not the least because Chris Stark, the agency's climate czar, uses a gas boiler, meaning he might get to enjoy the warmth the CCC otherwise seeks to deny his countrymen.

Homes with gas heating appear to be exempt from the CCC's recommendation, but the U.K. has plans to ban those alternatives in the coming years — meaning everyone, including Stark, might soon feel the evening chill.

Andrew Montford, the director of Net Zero Watch — a group that monitors the government's extremist climate polices — told the Telegraph, "The grid is already creaking, and daft ideas like this show just how much worse it will become. ... It's clear that renewables are a disaster in the making. We now need political leaders with the courage to admit it."

British lawmaker Craig Mackinlay, the chair of the parliamentary Net Zero Scrutiny Group, said, "This latest advice to freeze ourselves on cold evenings merely shows the truth that the dream of plentiful and cheap renewable energy is a sham. ... I came into politics to improve all aspects of my constituents' lives, not make them colder and poorer."

The push to limit emissions and freeze out Westerners is predicated largely upon a sense that the world is confronted with an climate "emergency."

Despite the repeated suggestion that the science is settled, an international coalition of thousands of scientists, including a handful of Nobel laureates, just penned a declaration stressing, "There is no climate emergency."

Dr. John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, and Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Norwegian-American engineer who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973, have joined over 1,600 other scientists and professionals in stressing the following points:

  • "Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming";
  • "Warming is far slower than predicted";
  • "Climate policy relies on inadequate models";
  • "CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. ... More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the earth";
  • "Global warming has not increased natural disasters"; and
  • "Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities."

The declaration further states that "[c]limate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A Biden Climate Emergency Would Unleash Unconstitutional Actions

Biden is considering invoking considerable powers, but executive actions taken for a 'climate emergency' would be unconstitutional.

Watch: Parolee begs climate protesters to quit blocking traffic so he can get to work, says he could go back to jail



Fourteen people were arrested after far-left climate protesters blocked several lanes of traffic on a Maryland highway, causing severe travel delays in the Washington, D.C., area on the Fourth of July.

Climate protesters dressed in yellow reflective safety vests sat down on the road and blocked all lanes of traffic on the inner loop of I-495 in Montgomery County, Maryland, near Exit 30 for Colesville Road/U.S. Route 29 in the afternoon Monday, WTTG reported.

Maryland State Police responded and made the arrests, a spokesperson said. The protesters were charged with disturbing the peace and hindering passage, as well as failure to obey a reasonable/lawful order.

Rockville Barrack troopers responded at approximately 12:30 p.m. after receiving a report of a group of people blocking all lanes of traffic on the inner loop of the beltway.

The protesters were asked to move to the shoulder, police said. Those who did not comply with the order to disperse were arrested.

Four of the 13 protesters were also charged with resisting arrest. At least one counter-protester was also charged with second-degree assault and resisting arrest.

Video of the protest taken by the D.C.-based online media outlet News2Share shows a driver confronting the protesters and pleading with them to open up at least one lane of traffic. The man said he was on parole and could be returned to prison if he was late for his job.

\u201cVIDEO THREAD: Yesterday, July 4, activists demanding Joe Biden declare a "Climate Emergency" blocked traffic on he beltway in Maryland, just outside DC.\n\nOne agitated driver got physical with them while saying that he's on parole and could return to prison if late for his job.\u201d
— Ford Fischer (@Ford Fischer) 1657049770

As police arrived, the man claiming to be a parolee became increasingly agitated and got physical with the protesters who were blocking traffic.

Police arrested him before proceeding to arrest the 13 climate protesters.

\u201cPolice took their time preparing to arrest the activists blocking the highway, but had warned drivers not to assault the protesters.\n\nAs the shirtless parolee who claimed he could go back to jail for being late continued confronting them, police arrested and carried him away.\u201d
— Ford Fischer (@Ford Fischer) 1657049770

Police said that all lanes of traffic had been reopened by approximately 1:45 p.m.

A radical far-left group called "Declare Emergency" claimed responsibility for organizing the protest in a statement demanding that President Joe Biden "immediately declare a national state of climate emergency."

"Today there were almost two dozen Declare Emergency campaign supporters on the road, coming from as far away as Oregon, Washington and Florida to make their voices heard here in DC/MD/VA area. A total of thirteen ordinary citizens have been arrested today while acting in nonviolent civil resistance, raising the alarm on the climate crisis," the group said.

"Our action is an expression of our fear for our families, for the future of humanity and life on Earth. We are acting upon what thousands of scientists tell us, because our government is refusing to. Many other groups around the world are taking similar actions as a part of a global coalition called the A22 Network. Declare Emergency is currently centered around Washington DC and is inviting everyone from all disciplines, classes and beliefs, to join us on the road."

Vogue slammed for 'completely insane' article asking if having a baby is 'environmental vandalism'



A British Vogue article caught the ire of the internet for asking the question, "Is having a baby in 2021 pure environmental vandalism?" The author suggested that people should consider the "current climate emergency" before procreating, despite that she had already given birth to a baby and saying that she would gladly bring another human being into the world.

"For the scientifically-engaged person, there are few questions more troubling when looking at the current climate emergency than that of having a baby," Nell Frizzell wrote in the fashion magazine. "Whether your body throbs to reproduce, you passively believe that it is on the cards for you one day, or you actively seek to remain child-free, the declining health of the planet cannot help but factor in your thinking."

Frizzell claimed that before she got pregnant that she "worried feverishly about the strain on the earth's resources that another Western child would add," including the food he ate and the electricity the baby would use. The writer also panicked over a possible dystopian future on a planet with no water and crops that her son would live in decades from now when he is an elderly man.

Despite her professed overwhelming fears, Frizzell got pregnant and brought another person into the world.

"And yet, like millions of others, I did it anyway," Frizzell said. "I had a baby. I'd have another if my partner agreed."

Frizzell attempted to justify her decision to have a child by stating that everyone who has a baby needs to be "learning to live within our environmental means, of turning away from the fever of consumerism and overturning a political system that rewards a tiny rich minority at the expense of everyone else."

Frizzell's Malthusian argument was challenged by Human Progress, an organization that presents evidence from individual scholars, academic institutions, and international organizations to show "dramatic improvements in human well-being throughout much of the world."

"Children do not strain the world's resources," the Cato Institute-linked organization wrote on Twitter. "In fact, the opposite is true: each new child is correlated with an increase in resource abundance."

Another dubious claim in the article: "Pollution now kills more people than tobacco – and three times as many as AI… https://t.co/YO1vIVW9ln
— HumanProgress.org (@HumanProgress.org)1619577611.0

There was backlash to the article questioning the morals of childbearing Westerners.

"The View" co-host Meghan McCain responded to the piece by saying, "NOT TODAY SATAN!"

Insider columnist Josh Barro wrote, "These people are completely insane. This is an issue for your therapist, not for a major fashion magazine."

Political commentator Liz Wheeler reacted by tweeting, "This is crazy. If you don't have a baby, that won't do a THING to impact the climate. But you'll deprive yourself of the greatest joy you've ever known... & the world a new soul. Plant a tree. Go to church. Stop voting for Democrats. And have a baby."

Emily Domenech, senior policy adviser for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, lampooned the article, "'For the scientifically-engaged person, there are few questions more troubling when looking at the current climate emergency than that of having a baby.' This is unscientific trash, much like the rest of this deeply silly article. If you are lucky enough to have a partner, have a baby! Don't let them scare you — this beautiful planet full of innovative people will continue to survive and thrive. So many of us will never get this opportunity. Don't waste your chance to be a parent because of unscientific fear-mongering."

Ricochet editor Bethany S. Mandel tweeted, "The breeders will inherit the Earth."

Turning Point media administrator Reagan Escudé Scott shot back, "Nothing motivates me to have children more than garbage takes like this. I can't wait to have 10+ kids just to spite these loons."

Evolutionary psychologist and professor Gad Saad responded with snark, "I apologize to @GretaThunberg, to @AOC, and to @JohnKerry for having had children. I will try to starve them to offset their carbon footprint. Again, my apologies. I'll do better."

Radio host Erick Erickson quipped, "Really alarming that Vogue would let a person write this piece and presume the gender of her child before the child could decide for itself."

One Twitter user joked, "Did Thanos write this?"

Scientific American to begin using term 'climate emergency,' says it 'agreed with major news outlets worldwide' to do so



Scientific American — the longtime publication that covers the "intersection of science and society" — announced Monday that it will begin using the term "climate emergency" in its coverage of climate change.

In publishing the op-ed "We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We're Going to Say So," senior editor Mark Fischetti called attention to the magazine's decision, which insists that "this is a statement of science, not politics."

A Scientific American tweet added that it "agreed with major news outlets worldwide" in enacting the "climate emergency" terminology:

Scientific American has agreed with major news outlets worldwide to start using the term “climate emergency” in its… https://t.co/SfkeH1OGXB
— Scientific American (@Scientific American)1618236001.0

What else does Scientific American have to say?

The magazine said that adopting the term "climate emergency" is "not a journalistic fancy. We are on solid scientific ground."

The op-ed went on to cite a January article from its pages that noted "more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries had signed a report to signify their agreement that the world is facing a climate emergency that requires bold action. As of April 9, another 2,100 had signed on."

The magazine, further citing the article, said that as of January, "1,859 jurisdictions in 33 countries have issued climate emergency declarations covering more than 820 million people."

Fischetti wrote that "journalism should reflect what science says: the climate emergency is here."

What does the magazine's statement say?

The op-ed included Scientific American's formal statement:

April 12, 2021

From Covering Climate Now, Scientific American,Columbia Journalism Review, the Nation, the Guardian, Noticias Telemundo, Al Jazeera, Asahi Shimbun and La Repubblica:

The planet is heating up way too fast. It's time for journalism to recognize that the climate emergency is here.

This is a statement of science, not politics. Thousands of scientists—including James Hansen, the NASA scientist who put the problem on the public agenda in 1988, and David King and Hans Schellnhuber, former science advisers to the British and German governments, respectively—have said humanity faces a "climate emergency."

Why "emergency"? Because words matter. To preserve a livable planet, humanity must take action immediately. Failure to slash the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make the extraordinary heat, storms, wildfires and ice melt of 2020 routine and could "render a significant portion of the Earth uninhabitable," warned the January Scientific American article.

The media's response to COVID-19 provides a useful model. Guided by science, journalists have described the pandemic as an emergency, chronicled its devasting [sic] impacts, called out disinformation and told audiences how to protect themselves (with masks and social distancing, for example).

We need the same commitment to the climate story. As partners in Covering Climate Now, a global consortium of hundreds of news outlets, we will present coverage in the lead-up to Earth Day, April 22, 2021, around the theme "Living Through the Climate Emergency." We invite journalists everywhere to join us.

How did folks react?

The response to Scientific American's announcement on Twitter that it will begin using the term "climate emergency" was a mixed bag. Some commenters heartily agreed with the magazine, while others did not.

One user wrote "this is so scary; you can blame the Republicans for destroying our planet," while another commenter replied, "Please do explain how that is? Also any peer reviewed papers you've written on the subject of how a political party is responsible for the climate of Earth." Another user quipped, "Still waiting for Al Gore's predictions to come true."