I have just sent an e-mail to my Member of Parliament (Jeremy Hunt) regarding the submission I made two weeks ago in response to the UK government's consultation on "de-carbonizing transport".
Here is the covering e-mail, which also draws his attention to a long, complex article I have written on lockdown actions taken against the COVID-19 virus, and how appropriate and effective they have been.
Please find attached,
for your consideration as my MP, two documents on the subject of climate change
and the UK government’s plans to “de-carbonize” transport. The first is a
two-page letter, with a number of questions on these matters, whose relevance I
very much hope you will appreciate. The second is a 56-page PDF, which I
submitted two weeks ago as my response to the recent government “consultation”
on these matters.
While writing, I
would also like to take the opportunity to give you a link to an article I have
recently written and published on the subject of lockdowns against the COVID-19
virus. The article is here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/08/11/covid-19-lock-downs-or-cock-ups/.
This is, of course,
an area in which as a former health secretary you have almost unrivalled
expertise. My researches have led me towards the conclusion that the lockdowns,
as implemented in the UK (and many other countries), have been way over the top
compared to what was actually necessary. I realize you might personally disagree;
but I am sure you will be aware that the longer all this stuff goes on, the
less inclined ordinary people will be to give the government the benefit of the
doubt.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Lock
<Address redacted>
Jeremy
Hunt MP
(South
West Surrey)
House
of Commons
Westminster
London
SW1A
0AA
13
August 2020
Dear
Mr Hunt
Climate Change and
De-Carbonizing Transport
Twelve
years ago, on July 14th, 2008, I wrote you a nine-page letter urging
you find out the facts regarding climate change. And, having done so, to take
the strongest possible stand against the UK’s Climate Change Bill. You never
bothered even to acknowledge my letter, let alone reply to it. Even though I prompted
you about it when you phoned me to solicit my vote the day before the 2010
election. I was, to say the least, disappointed in you.
Now,
twelve years later, here we are again. But things have moved on, since you
voted for that dreadful bill on that snowy night in October 2008.
Two
weeks ago, I submitted a response to the government’s recent consultation on “de-carbonizing
transport.” It is a 56-page PDF, and I include it in the attachments to my
e-mail. I would ask you please, Mr Hunt, to read what I have to say, and to give
full consideration to it. You are, after all, my one and only representative in
a parliament, many of whose acts over the last year and more I consider to have
gone well beyond the bounds of reasonable behaviour. By its actions the
parliament has, as far as I am concerned, brought itself into disrepute. And as
a result, I have now lost all respect for it.
I
would like to know your views on some of the issues I raise in my document. But
I won’t expect you to dig into any of the scientific detail. Your liberal-arts
education, and your many years of experience with government bureaucracy,
should be sufficient for you to be able to address my questions.
1.
Do you agree with the quote from Bertrand Russell, with which I begin
my Preface?
2.
Would you agree that government exists to serve the people, not to rule
over them against their interests?
3.
Do you agree with me when I say: “you should expect government always
to be reasonable towards the people it governs?”
4.
Do you agree with me when I say that MPs: “ought always to support the
interests of the people they represent against encroachment by other political
interests. For example, MPs in rural areas ought to champion the car as the
best means of transport for people in their areas, even when it is pooh-poohed
and threatened by the big-city slickers.”
5.
Would you agree that government, and those whom it funds, should always
behave with honesty, integrity and good faith towards the public?
6.
Would you agree that government must never make costly commitments on
behalf of the governed without rigorous justification?
7.
Would you agree that, in a case such as the allegations that human
emissions of carbon dioxide are leading to catastrophic climate change, the burden
of proof should always be on the accusers to substantiate their case beyond
reasonable doubt?
8.
Would you agree that the UK Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk
Assessment’s 2002 re-formulation of the precautionary principle, which I link to
from my document as reference [5], was dishonest and done in bad faith? Would
you agree that it had the effect, in matters such as the “climate change”
allegations, of negating the presumption of innocence, inverting the burden of
proof, and requiring the accused to prove a negative?
9.
Do you think that the BBC likening allowing climate change skeptics to
speak to “letting someone deny last week’s football scores” violated their own
guidelines on impartiality?
10.
Would you agree that the UK government’s 2009 abandonment of the social
cost approach to valuing carbon dioxide emissions when considering policies,
which I link to from my document as reference [6], was dishonest and done in
bad faith?
11.
Do you think that the UK government’s 2010 “Climategate” inquiries were
entirely honest and done in good faith?
12.
Would you agree that Extinction Rebellion is an extremist organization,
and should never have been allowed to influence UK government policy?
13.
Do you think that the Committee for Climate Change is an independent,
impartial body?
14.
Do you agree with me that setting arbitrary collective targets and
limits on what people may do, for example “carbon budgets,” is unjust and
tyrannical?
15.
Do you think that the UK government’s plans for implementing “zero
carbon,” their costs, and the consequences to the people affected by them, have
been fully thought through?
16.
Would you agree that the arrogant tone of the “setting the challenge”
document, in particular in its use of words and phrases like “interventions,” “behaviour
change” and “accelerating modal shift,” is inappropriate to the way in which a
democratic government ought to treat its people?
17.
Would you agree with me when I say: “The UK government must commission
a thorough, independent, scrupulously honest, unbiased audit of its own conduct,
and the conduct of those it funded, in environmental matters over the period
since 1970?”
18.
And finally, if you had known in 2008 that the policies resulting from the
climate change agenda would eventually have such large negative consequences
for the standard and quality of living of your constituents, would you have voted
for the climate change bill?
I
have put my case, as fully and eloquently as I can, in my PDF document. I hope
that you will feel able to take Bertrand Russell’s sage advice, and seek the facts
of the matter – just as I asked you to, twelve years ago. When you have done
so, I think you will find that most, if not all, of my concerns on this matter are
justified. What you decide to do then will, of course, be up to you.
Yours
sincerely
Neil
Lock
P.S.
I will publish this letter as “An Open Letter to my MP about Climate Change and
De-Carbonizing Transport” on my own small blog http://www.honestcommonsense.co.uk/,
and on another blog where I am an author. I will publish your reply on my own
blog when I receive it.
Enclosure:
“Response to Consultation on ‘De-Carbonizing Transport’ in the UK,” July 31st,
2020.
No comments:
Post a Comment