Matthew Parris Calls for Ban on Smelly Hydrocarbons Whether Climate Emergency is Real or Not

God in Heaven save us from these dripping wets with their luxury beliefs

God In Heaven save us from the dripping wets who want to remove hydrocarbon use from modern society because they are a bit smelly and not very nice, don’t you understand. The same type of naïve people who think that society can do without hydrocarbons but they will still be able to pick up a soy latte on their way to buy organic humous at Waitrose. Step forward Matthew Parris writing in last week’s Spectator. He thinks that the scare over the claimed climate emergency is worth the cost and anxiety to rid ourselves of hydrocarbons because they are bad for health, domestic politics and the West’s future security.

It sems not to have occurred to luxury belief-laden Parris that life without hydrocarbons will cause mass starvation, death, societal collapse and no external security. Come on down the Caliphate, Boris the Bear, or even the French.

Parris appears far too grand to have actually consulted the science of climate and the mechanics of energy provision. He “distrusts” both sets of arguing people he obviously regards as climate nutters, although he admits that he lacks both scientific expertise and new information. Basic climate science is not that difficult to understand, but despite his admitted lack of information he rushes to print to promote an extremist Net Zero fantasy. “Well even if the climate emergency does not exist, it will prove useful to have invented it,” is his considered contribution to one of the great political and scientific issues of our time.

The soy latte/Waitrose shoppers were much in evidence early last year when around 200 members of the British Parliament were prepared to vote for a ‘climate and nature’ bill that would have cut hydrocarbon use across the entire UK economy, including imports, by around 90% within a decade. All the Lib Dems, the Greens, 80 Labour MPs and, Heavenly Father help us again, two particularly dim Conservatives. Just 10% hydrocarbon use would be barely enough to sustain the emergency services. Under this regime, food would disappear in the shops (yes, Waitrose included) since hydrocarbon-produced fertiliser doubles crop yields, there would be no transport, all building and most maintenance work would stop, people would freeze to death in their homes and the only available meat would be Fido in the corner. I could go on at some length about the catastrophic consequences. Sinister or stupid are the two choices to make of people who in any event should not be anywhere near the levers of political power.