Corbyn calls for 1st ever climate emergency declaration – and promises ‘Green Industrial Revolution’

Labour’s call a world first – and comes with a Green Industrial Revolution promise

Labour is to force a vote to make the UK Parliament the first in the world to declare a climate emergency.

The party plans to force a vote in the Commons this week to declare a climate and environmental emergency, making the UK Parliament the first in the world to do so.

Labour will use an opposition motion on Wednesday to push Parliament to act with urgency to avoid more than 1.5°C of warming, which requires global emissions to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ before 2050.

Last year, UK carbon dioxide emissions fell by only 2% – a rate that means that the UK would not reach levels compatible with net zero before 2100, far too late to avoid dangerous climate change.

Rebecca Long Bailey, Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, decried this slow rate of change saying “winning slowly on climate change is the same as losing”.

Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn called the recent unprecedented wave of climate activism “a massive and necessary wake up call” for “rapid and dramatic action, which only concerted government action and a Green Industrial Revolution can deliver.”

Corbyn said that Labour hopes that if Parliament declares a climate emergency it “will trigger a wave of action from parliaments and governments around the world.”

Labour’s demands reflect the findings of the world’s leading scientific body on climate change, the IPCC, that to avoid dangerous climate change the world will need to take “rapid and far reaching” action to decarbonise. It comes after weeks in which striking school children, ‘Extinction Rebellion’ protestors and David Attenborough have rocketed climate change up the national agenda.

Labour’s move has been praised by climate activists.

Labour is also developing plans to capture the economic opportunities of the low carbon economy for the many not the few through a ‘Green Industrial Revolution‘ providing high-skilled, secure and well-paid jobs in every region and nation of our country, especially our former industrial towns.

Research commissioned by twenty governments has found that without action on climate change tens of millions of people will die by 2030, with more than 90% of those deaths occurring in the global South.

Beyond climate change, the UK is undergoing an alarming trend in species decline and is currently missing almost all of its biodiversity targets, with cuts of almost 50% to Natural England undermining efforts to protect wildlife, air and water quality.

Labour’s motion will call for further action to meet the challenge of the emergency including setting targets for and supporting the mass roll-out of renewable and low carbon energy and transport, properly funding environmental protection, reversing the alarming trend in species decline and developing plans to move towards a zero waste economy.

The motion follows Shadow Environment Secretary Sue Hayman’s declaration of an environment and climate emergency on behalf of the Labour Party on 28 March.

Jeremy Corbyn said:

The inspiring climate activism we’ve seen in recent weeks must serve as a massive and necessary wake up call for rapid and dramatic action. Only concerted government intervention through a Green Industrial Revolution can deliver this scale of change.

We can and we will harness the power of new technologies for social and environmental justice.

For young people, the climate emergency is the cause of their generation. And we in older generations must face up to this seriously. We have to have a much more focused and serious approach towards climate change and the damage we’re doing to our planet. We want a world for those in countries worst affected by and least to blame for climate change and our young people.

On Wednesday, the UK Parliament will have the chance to be the first in the world to declare an environment and climate emergency, which we hope will trigger a wave of action from parliaments and governments around the world.

Rebecca Long Bailey, Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said:

Winning slowly on climate change is the same as losing – and the UK has been moving far too slowly in recent years, reducing its emissions by just 2% last year.

That is why government must be put on an emergency footing to mobilise the resources needed to tackle climate change at an adequate pace and scale.

Labour is committed to tackling the environment and climate emergency by ushering in a Green Industrial Revolution that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs and transform whole regions of the UK held back for decades.

Shadow Environment Secretary Sue Hayman said:

The Committee on Climate Change has said that the government is not preparing for climate change across a series of key areas including habitats, fires, floods and heatwaves. This failure puts our population at risk and undermines British infrastructure and security.

British wildlife is in freefall after nine years of cuts. Protecting and expanding the UK’s natural habitats is a core part of Labour’s plans to kickstart a Green Industrial Revolution.

Barry Gardiner, Shadow Minister for International Climate Change, added:

Climate change is fundamentally an issue of justice. The poorest people in the world have done the least to cause climate change, but it is those same people who will bear the brunt of its horrific impacts on their lives and livelihoods.

As an internationalist party we are proud to take the lead in tackling what is the most profound justice issue faced by the world today.

We are facing a climate emergency; it must be declared and it must be acted upon now.


Climate activists welcomed the announcement. Greta Thunberg said:

It is very hopeful that a major European political party has woken up to propose a declaration of a national climate emergency.

It is a great first step because it sends a clear signal that we are in a crisis and that the ongoing climate and ecological crises must be our first priority. We can not solve an emergency without treating it like an emergency.

I hope that the other UK political parties join in and together pass this motion in Parliament – and that political parties in other countries will follow their example.

16-year-old climate striker George Bond, from Devon said:

The recognition of the urgency of climate breakdown is a necessary first step in addressing this crisis at the scale that we must to prevent irreversible breakdown. Empty claims about the UK’s competence at emissions reductions must be stopped. This declaration must be followed by a mobilisation only previously seen in times of conflict involving deep cross party collaboration. It must deliver and create jobs at the same time as undertaking the necessary measures to address the climate crisis while establishing desperately needed equity in the UK as part of a just transition away from fossil fuels.

All sectors of the UK economy must be rapidly decarbonised if the young people of this country are to have any hope of a liveable future.

Labour will commit:

  • the UK to achieve net zero emissions before 2050.
  • at least 60% of energy (electricity and heat) to come from low-carbon or renewable sources within twelve years of coming to power. This means 85-90% of electricity from low carbon sources.
  • to create of 400,000 well-paid, unionised jobs through retrofitting houses, and building the UK’s wind and solar power. Many more jobs will be created in other green sectors.
  • to a mass home insulation programme going street to street, with a zero carbon home standard for new-build homes.

On May 11 in Scarborough, Rebecca Long Bailey will launch a national call for evidence to build a detailed green job creation plan as part of Labour’s community organising unit’s programme of mobilising, training and developing Green Industrial Revolution leaders all over the country.

The highly respected House of Commons Library could not find any examples of national or parliamentary declarations of a climate emergency.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

48 responses to “Corbyn calls for 1st ever climate emergency declaration – and promises ‘Green Industrial Revolution’

    • But we will never have a Labour government and the Green New Deal if People’s Vote campaigners like you keep demanding that Labour sticks two fingers up to 17,400,000 voters who voted to leave the EU, all because a few hundred thousand Labour members are EU zealots.

      As it only takes 13m votes to win a general election Labour will certainly lose the next election and hand power to the Tories if the People’s Vote Campaign persists in making anti-democratic demands upon Labour.

      If remainers continue to try to overrule the largest democratic mandate in British history they will guarantee the annihilation of the Labour Party and will enable perpetual Tory rule.

      So, not only are people like you a threat to our democracy and to the Labour Party, you are also a threat to our environment.

      Please think rationally and stop damaging the Labour vote by calling for a second referendum. It has been defeated in Parliament several times and will never be agreed by the Tories. You are damaging Labour for nothing.

      You are also acting as a recruiting sergeant for the far right. Your refusal to accept democratic results is a propaganda coup for Tommy Robinson and the far right. You are proving their argument for them that the establishment holds the people of this country and our democracy in complete contempt.

      Think more deeply about the dangerous and reckless actions you are engaged in. They have serious consequences which you appear to be oblivious to.

      • Oh FFS get a grip of yourself and put your brain in gear.

        Surely the irony of you playing at being a right on socialist whilst supporting the same policy as Tommy Robinson, the ERG, US NeoCons & Farage whilst also intimating that the vast majority of the membership of the largest socialist party in Europe are somehow a threat to democracy can’t be lost even to your blinkered mind.

      • Your response is contentless aside from insults. You have addressed none of the substantive points raised.

        As the reader can see for themselves, you and your fellow hardline remainers have clearly lost the argument.

      • Internal Affairs 28/04/2019 at 3:06 am

        Well the only substantive point you made that I failed to address was your one a 2nd referendum to parliament on 4 separate occasions. Whilst you could claim that to be sort of true it is as you know not the whole truth. In the interest of transparency and so that nobody is deceived it is important to make people aware of what actually happened rather than what you would like us to believe.

        Your version lacks detail and seems to be more than a little disingenuous

        29th Jan (tabled by Corbyn)
        This was as part of a composite motion so any vote was influenced by the accompanying motion.

        14th Mar (tabled by TIG)
        Labour whipped to abstain on this vote

        27th Mar (indicative vote #1)
        None of the options voted on achieved a majority but it is worth noting that the second referendum came second in popularity amongst all the options voted on.

        1st Apr (indicative vote #2)
        None of the options voted on achieved a majority but it is worth noting that the second referendum came a close second in popularity.

        If I’ve missed anything else you may find your answer here. https://skwawkbox.org/2019/04/27/nec-cancels-enfield-council-lab-group-agm-after-council-leader-ignores-instruction-to-face-election/#comment-103507

      • Oh and before I forget. You accused me on another non EU thread of being obsessive about the EU and yet here you are again turning another non EU thread into an EU thread with your own self evident obsession.
        I’m still waiting for you answer my challenge for you to provide proof of your rather silly and obsessive accusations.

      • Internal Affairs is that your bogstandard answer to everything?

      • We won’t have a green new deal at all, no matter who wins. Take today’s news, where they Tory has quit because the fracking business doesn’t like having to stop because of the earthquakes they cause.

        Money talks, people suffer.

        It’s not going to change until we abandon capitalism. And what’s the honest chances of that?

      • NVLA 28/04/2019 at 11:03 am

        You are not very big on accuracy are you she’s (unfortunately) an ex Labour MP.

      • If it talks like a Tory, if it acts like a Tory, it _is_ a Tory.

        Would a green backing Labour member/(ex)MP get into bed with ineos? Would they act as a go-between for bad business and bad government?

        Lots of Tories wear red and yellow rosettes, and you already knew that…sigh

      • Natascha Engel was Labour MP for NE Derbyshire. One of the few seats we lost in 2017. And for those lexiters calling her a tory, she was one of the very few Labour MPs supporting leave. Did her no good, even in a strong leave area. Her support of fracking was probably more important.

      • Sabine, IA’s default response is to call those who disagree with him a right wing troll. I have no idea why he thinks this is a useful tactic (unless he’s a troll himself whose main purpose is to try to wind up RH 😈).

    • SteveH, IA, unless you’re both resident in the Antipodes, don’t you need to get some sleep?

      • While the people’s vote troll SteveH is probably asleep in his bed under his bridge I am leaving the house now to campaign all day to help Labour win the local elections.

        That is the difference between him and I. I want Labour to win the next election but trolls like SteveH don’t give a damn about Labour, they are just using the party as a vehicle to try to get what they want. Even if it means the destruction of the party.

        But of course infiltrating Labour to gain access to power always was the Blairites’ modus operandi.

        They are social democrat entryists who could never win anything standing on their own social democrat ticket. That is why they infiltrated the democratic socialist Labour Party. Michael Meacher wrote a very good article about this infiltration in the Independent when he called for the expulsion of Peter Mandelson.

        They are poisonous, undemocratic, cowardly and abusive people. Blair almost destroyed Labour. Remainers like SteveH and Sabine Ebert-Forbes are trying to finish the job.

        They will only succeed over my dead body.

      • Oh dear! IA adopting the Labour Party as a private fiefdom. Again! The words ‘up’, ‘own’ and ‘arse’ spring to mind.

      • The reader will note that yet again the People’s Vote troll RH had failed to address any of the substantive points raised.

        A sure sign that they have lost the argument.

      • Internal Affairs 28/04/2019 at 8:15 pm

        “The reader will note that yet again the People’s Vote troll RH had failed to address any of the substantive points raised.”

        What substantive points are you talking about, I can’t see any.
        If you want your points addressed than please list them concisely and I’ll do what I can to answer them.

      • This (and yesterday’s) thread is hilarious! Has it not occurred to anyone that IA might just be winding SteveH up? He just may have more self-awareness than you give him credit for.

        But do continue. I’m finding it most entertaining!

  1. It doesn’t have to be Sunday but can we have one day a week where the mention of Brexit attracts some kind of penalty? Banished for a week maybe?
    Just don’t anybody get any ideas about swearboxes.

    I’m slightly concerned the MSM’s going to accuse Corbyn of jumping on the climate bandwagon if we don’t give them some specifics. My first thought is to expand shipbuilding and wind turbine building at Barrow, Liverpool, the Clyde and the North East – we’ll need lots more offshore wind farms and ships to service them, hopefully wave/tidal generation too. There ought to be enough older skilled men who can help train the large number of apprentices that we’ll need before the skills are lost. Shipbuilding will be affected by AI but the scale of ships might hopefully mean it takes longer.
    Barrow particularly has to replace its nuclear submarine work and it has the right skills – nuclear power for larger ships is also greener than oil and more distant opportunities are likely to arise as the North West Passage opens up with the warming that’s occurring.
    Very large vessels will also be needed if we’re to make any attempt, however forlorn, to extract the plastic from the oceans.

    • Thanks for your useful contribution to the debate,especially after having to scroll past the bloody nonsense above.

    • David, excellent post. That sort of specificity is just what is needed to increase support for the deal among the uncommitted.

    • Ignoring the skills aspects, what about the infrastructure, machinery and tooling required to kick start this? Are the dry docks big enough for us to really compete, and are there enough contracts going around to justify the expenditure?

      In my opinion, we would be better off looking forward rather than looking back. Finding new innovative solutions to problems facing the world today, rather than trying to take a slice of the pie causing our woes.

      For example, packaging made from plants instead of oil (plastics). Nuclear isn’t really a way forward either, at least fission, on account of the legacy we’re leaving behind.

      The UK is more than capable of creating innovation, it’s if the establishment wants it that is the issue.

  2. To remove plastics from oceans guess what? You have to first pick them up and then compress and store them to return them to dry land.
    Small robotic vessels have been proposed and they could certainly help with the collection but not the storage – that takes big ships.
    The oil used by ships is a big problem and the fact that fusion isn’t yet a reality in any commercial sense is also a problem.
    Nuclear is the answer.
    It may already be (and probably is) too late for the oceans – as plastic degrades into particles it’s taken up by more and more organisms – filtration will be necessary to have any chance of recovering it.
    Organisms that consume plastic exist but we’ve had enough of unintended consequences from introducing species into new environments.
    Of course saving the planet is a gigantic project and will take huge resources – did you think otherwise? “Compete” isn’t relevant here – it’s a not-for-profit enterprise.
    Jeezus. Think Roosevelt’s New Deal, FSA etc., not profit.
    We’re Labour FFS. What you are – who cares?

    Oh yes – “looking forward not back, using plant material for packaging”
    That gives me two brilliant ideas, thanks!
    I shall call them “paper bags” and “cardboard,” you pretentious dickhead.

    • When was the last time you were given a paper bag? Cardboard, still fairly common, but used rather too much.

      I’m not the one who think of competition, that how our global world operates. That’s why our oceans are full of plastic, instead of paper bags.

      Roosevelt’s new deal…We need to ditch the car, not pander to it. Feel free to show me how Labour is different to what it’s been like for the last forty years.

      Be as pretentious as you like, too.

  3. Actually, belay “Nuclear is the answer” in terms only of plastic recovery vessels.
    It’ll be essential for filters (micro nets) to move slowly enough that fish are not caught.
    That might leave open the possibility of solar electric propulsion – not viable with normal shipping. The vast solar area of a large ship moving at a crawl might just work (given emergency back-up propulsion) but I’m not the one to do the sums any more.

    • You know how many ships are lost at sea each week? And you want them nuclear powered?!?!

  4. Slightly under two hundred registered vessels sank in 2018, most of which were far smaller than tanker/container vessel size and many of which were poorly maintained and handled.
    Five nuclear submarines have been lost at sea in sixty years. Seawater cooling prevents meltdown and dilution makes radioactive contamination negligible.
    The way ships are presently built and engined isn’t the only way to do it.
    Modular construction is commonly used in shipbuilding today but there’s nothing to prevent a “vessel” being composed of a number of separate but flexibly connected floating elements. Such constructions can float like a flexible carpet on the sea’s surface and absorb wave action normal large ships have to resist.
    When the mid-section of a big ship sits on a large wave and the ends are less supported that’s called “hogging” – the opposite is called “sagging” and both can break the backs of large ships like the Derbyshire.
    I only suggest flexibly-connected module construction for plastic collection vessels – ones required to remain at sea for perhaps a year or more with no possibility of running to harbour – not for normal ships.
    At sea nuclear makes more sense than it does on land.

  5. Great some really interesting ideas in above comments , refreshing not to be fighting each other over you know what.
    The idea over using nuke powered ships is , in the shortish terms , IMO good , it is readily available , tried and tested ( USA has aircraft carriers nuke powered ) and they aren’t fossil fuelled .

    NVLA ,@ I can’t remember the last time a nuke powered aircraft carrier was sunk at sea , but I am no expert ?
    At least it neatly overcomes the valid argument of those workers in the Nuke Sub industry concerns over jobs , to have them redirected to a more positive use and helping to save the planet .

    Yes to more green innovation , wind and of course for us here, tidal , we just need the political will and commitment to do it
    It’s exciting to think of the sheer numbers of potential jobs spinning off from this , how about “requiring ” the building industry to put solar panels on the roofs of ALL new house builds. Reintroducing the solar panel grant scheme for existing housing.
    The compulsory infrastructure building to sustain full on electric car use , simple ultimatum to the oil industry CO’s ,get with the program or face extinction as no new car will be fossil fuelled and if you do make them the punitive tax on them will drive the consumer to use only electric .
    Yes I know there will be howls of how to do this the cost , the money from where , the magic money tree , BUT , as can be seen right now the climate doesn’t give a TOSS about the money and will kill us all if we don’t shift our collective arses .
    Oops getting a bit carried away there ……

    • Aircraft carrier is an unfair comparison, cost alone means they get protection other shipping dreams of. However, in the interests of information, 9 nuclear submarines have been lost in the 70 odd years of them sailing about.

      Privately owned shipping can and does take risks the military would not, which also needs to be taken in account.

      • Also, there’s the other issue of the military not telling us everything that goes on with their reactors.

        Apart from lost shipping, poor maintenance has been mentioned above. I’m not enthusiastic about companies that are well known for cutting costs/corners getting their fingers on nuclear power.

        Maybe merchant navy? Can’t see that happening due to neoliberalism knowing the market knows best

      • Privately owned? Only an imbecilic Tory would trust the future of humankind to the lowest bidder – whatever the world decides to do it has to be planned, re-planned, constructed, supported and implemented as the most important military operation in the history of the world would be.
        As if the planet depended on it in fact.
        Do I need to stress that further – the fact that it’s of paramount importance? IT’S OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE.
        So – 9 not 5. Always suspected my copy of Google was broken.
        A difference that makes no difference – unless you want to pick that nit too?
        Are you going to argue every little detail of a back-of-an-envelope first draft of something that’s just somebody else’s suggestion on a political blog?
        Get a fucking life.

      • McNiven, incase you hadn’t noticed, that’s the world we currently occupy. And singing kumbyah and sit ins havent worked so far, have they?

        Finance calls the shots, and I can only see them changing when it’s too late. After all, history backs this up.

        I think you’ll find that many of the people in charge think breaking Iran and Russia is of the paramount importance, not saving the world. And you can bet the military will not do anything to help with your brighter better world either.

        I’m not going to argue anything with you anymore, on account of you being a condescending, arrogant, rude know all.

        The world is safe with chopsy keyboard warriors such as yourself.

        Go forth and multiply “dickhead”

      • Great its got you( and others ) thinking NVLA another thought , I think that private shipping pollution is not even calculated into the CO2 figures so things are worse than ever .
        I would imagine that should we, as a race, implement this then it would be on a scale and organisational intensity that would exclude all privateers , maybe ironically it would be our Navies that organise it and run it .
        9 nukes in 70 yrs is IMO not bad really , plus in the early days they wouldn’t have been as reliable as now and sailing about under the water is somewhat more difficult than floating on it .
        Positive mindset you know …..
        Maybe even better to stop producing some of the plastic stuff anyway , sort the problem at source so to speak ?

      • Just one thing…

        When would the chinese start building these nuclear-powered vessels for the UK, on time, and on budget, and with all the satisfactory security checks & measures in place?

  6. Some interesting ideas. Whatever the precise components of an overall solution, it is clear that governments have to take the leading role, in providing both carrot and stick : voluntarism isn’t going to cut the mustard, and nor is a mickey-mouse resort to ‘market’ mechanisms.

    One thing is for sure : the role of HE and related research in pushing the frontiers of technological advance to provide the basis for changing the focus of the economy away from the funny money dependency.

    … and that’s where, I’m afraid, we can’t just shut up about the role of Brexit,.since cross-border collaboration is going to be vitally important.

  7. RH and others – if we believe the science, the effects could be as final as thermonuclear war – far greater than that of WWII – in which business was quite strictly controlled, did what it was told and still made fortunes.
    Not this time.
    I’d insist on a war footing and state control of this because of its seriousness and because the Tories, left to themselves, will procrastinate until the earth is a smoking cinder.

    The rich invented the idea that he who dies with most toys wins – they rely completely on selling us toys we don’t really need and we lap it up.
    We have to stop being such avid consumers.
    The impulse to buy a new car & a smarter phone every year is a huge part of this problem.
    Except for our favouritecapitalists of course, to whom it’s absolutely essential.
    Do we need any more or bigger clues to help us decide whether we should hand the job of saving the planet to them or do it ourselves?
    I believe the science because I have no choice.
    For me science vs. Trump is no contest.

  8. MSM has mediated the ‘Climate Change Narrative’ into young against old. It would seem that the ‘make do & mend’ baby boomers, who founded the NHS etc. are their favourite target. Inter generational warfare is a dangerous & nasty game that deflects away from the Truth…..we are destroying the planet & there are serious questions that need to be asked, but turning one generation against another?

    Is this the power of a 16 year old Swedish girl speaking truth to power, or MSM giving her a platform because she’s photogenic & it’s good story?

    • She’s very sincere and very right – but I suspect Tories want to humour her until she goes away, the MSM can’t resist a good story and some others just want to hang on to her coat tails in case some financial advantage might be had.
      Tories play young against old because that’s what they imbibed with mothers’ milk, learned at Eton and from centuries of empire – divide and rule.
      And because we didn’t do it – it wasn’t our fault – we’ve got an alibi – it’s all Corbyn’s fault is their go-to response when anybody suggests it might be austerity that’s causing all that poverty.

      • People have been challenging gov’ts about the negative effects of consumerism & over population on the planet for generations. I remember when pop singers sang protest songs about it, from the Beach Boys (don’t go near the water) to David Bowie (we are hungry men), 50 years ago. There was a culture of questioning & protest, which has been sanitised.

        The Media ‘trick’ for the Labour Party is use this ‘Blue Planet’ inspired, new found ‘Let’s save the planet’ bandwagon to their advantage & against the Tories & their uncaring ‘Capitalist’ System that will eventually destroy us all. Ghia will not forgive.

    • Not sure Prof Lovelock will accept your apology given that you equated his hypothesis with a Ford 🙂

    • I’d like to say it’s an interesting article by Cory Morningstar and to some it maybe, but after the first few “acts” as she calls her sections , I gave up on it and just skip read it .IMO it’s one long list of negativity and deconstruction , get to the end of article to find there is no concrete suggestions of other ways forward , just a list of all that is , in Morningstars opinion, wrong with Greta T actions.
      IMO it would quickly become self evident if the ” Establishment” were taking over and corrupting the “green issues” and without begin “green naive” there has to be a real drive and start to change , and not have that drive and passion killed at birth by a load of negative criticism and no alternatives put forward .But then that’s just my opinion .

      • NVLA maybe a question to Ms Morningstar ?
        For me it would be by a Socialist Govt imposing rules and regulations to mitigate that unaccountable power.
        Starting with the money ( which is what motivates the ruling and powerful elite )

    • Let’s have a conspiracy investigation of conspiracy investigations.

      … but if it was written this badly and tediously, we’d probably save the planet as millions sawed at their wrists to escape.

  9. Anyone curious about why Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace haven’t been on the news for a really long time (that I’ve seen)?
    I believe Ms. Morningstar’s analysis is largely true – that the green movement is constantly and systematically being hijacked by capitalism with diversions like carbon trading.
    We all know they’ll con us if they can and if there’s a way to monetise ‘greenery’ they’ll stop at nothing to find it and to protect themselves from criticism and losses.
    It seems clear that what are effectively high tech marketing companies are manipulating social media to convince users of their paying clients’ green credentials – one of Ms. Morningstar’s claims seems to be that Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion are being used as social media tools by a for-profit organisation.

    I think that was all just Act One, Rob 🙂 🙂
    I’m going to watch out for the next though.

Leave a Reply