Photo by Aron Van de Pol on Unsplash
The UN Has Condemned Britain
Sunak is a “climate radical,” the world should learn from his mistakes.
·
Published in
·
7 min read
·
5 days ago
You might think of Britain as a leader in the eco-movement. Solar farms are becoming increasingly common in its quaint countryside, its coastline is filling up with wind turbines, and it is one of the few countries investing in new nuclear power. In fact, the country loudly exclaimed it was a world leader in the race to net-zero at Glasgow’s COP 26. But dig a little deeper, and you can see that we are being helmed by an utter moronic, delusion, corrupt pocket-lining imbecile that is derailing Britain’s economy and its sustainable future. This hasn’t gone unnoticed, as the UN has labelled Prime Minister Rishi Sunak a “climate radical”. But what has Sunak done? And more importantly, why has he done it?
Let’s start with what Sunak has done. Over the past year, he has given the go-ahead for 100 new oil and gas licences (which allow companies to tap new oil reserves) in the North Sea. He has also opened Britain’s first coal mine since 2015, a decision his top climate adviser calls ‘absolutely indefensible’.
This is why United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres condemned Sunak when he said, “The truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels” and that fossil fuel expansion is “moral and economic madness.” These statements firmly criticise Sunak’s fossil fuel-loving policies. More on why this is madness in a minute.
But Sunak doesn’t seem to see it like this, even though his scientists and advisers agree with the UN General Secretary. Sunak justified this fossil fuel expansion by saying, “It’s vital we bolster our energy security and capitalise on that independence to deliver more affordable, clean energy to British homes and businesses.” He went on to say, “Even when we’ve reached net-zero in 2050, a quarter of our energy needs will come from oil and gas.” To fight back against opponents of his policies, he said, “But there are those who would rather that it come from hostile states than from the supplies we have here at home.” When that wasn’t enough, he told broadcasters that this is “entirely consistent with our plan to get to net-zero” and that producing such energy domestically saves “two, three, four times the amount of carbon…
