StopNetZero.org
292 subscribers
24 photos
3 videos
1 file
90 links
Net Zero policies have nothing to do with "saving the planet" but rather will make us all colder, poorer and hungrier whilst the super rich get richer. This is a no nonsense channel to simply bring the truth to the masses.
Download Telegram
Good to remember!
😁3🤣2
https://expose-news.com/2025/03/15/how-climate-change-industry-shapes-the-narrative/

Great article from Prof. Norman Fenton on the BBC propaganda machine.
👍5
For the cost of Milibrain's Carbon Capture folly (£30bn) we could have 6 nuclear power stations delivered in 8 years, which don't need carbon capture and which would provide nearly all of our summertime demand for electricity at vastly lower cost.

Net Zero is a Cult and its high priest is Miliband.

A manmade CO2 Climate Crisis is the lie that is being used to tax away your wealth and regulate away your freedoms.

#StopNetZero

https://youtu.be/EgHbCqzQGkc?t=4557
👍8
StopNetZero.org
For the cost of Milibrain's Carbon Capture folly (£30bn) we could have 6 nuclear power stations delivered in 8 years, which don't need carbon capture and which would provide nearly all of our summertime demand for electricity at vastly lower cost. Net Zero…
Why not write to your MP?


Dear [MP’s Name],

Re: Urgent Concerns Regarding Ed Miliband’s £30 Billion Carbon Capture Plan

I am writing to express my serious concern about the actions of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband, and to urge you to challenge what I believe may amount to misfeasance or malfeasance in public office.

Mr Miliband’s proposal to spend £30 billion of taxpayers' money on carbon capture and storage (CCS) is deeply misguided. CCS is an unproven and unreliable technology, with a track record of failure and underperformance. A comprehensive 2022 report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found that “the majority of CCS projects have underperformed, failed outright, or simply never materialised.”

In contrast, a similar investment—£30 billion—could fund the construction of approximately six modern nuclear power stations. South Korea’s APR-1400 reactor model, successfully deployed in the United Arab Emirates, offers a compelling example of cost-effective nuclear development. The four Barakah reactors, with a total capacity of 5.6 GW, are expected to supply around 25% of the UAE’s electricity at a cost of approximately £18–20 billion—and crucially, were delivered close to schedule and budget.

France’s historical nuclear program also proves that a consistent, standardised rollout of nuclear infrastructure can deliver low-carbon energy at scale, affordably. By the 1990s, France was producing over 70% of its electricity from nuclear, thanks to efficient planning and strong political will.

Unlike CCS, nuclear power requires no speculative technology to sequester emissions. It produces consistent, reliable base-load electricity, and during summer months could cover the vast majority of the UK’s energy needs. Furthermore, nuclear assets are ideal for long-term institutional investors—including pension funds—because of their predictable, inflation-linked returns. By contrast, CCS, wind, and solar remain volatile, intermittent, and risk-laden from an investment perspective.

Given the overwhelming evidence against CCS as a viable large-scale solution, Mr Miliband’s decision to prioritise it over proven, cost-effective alternatives like nuclear is deeply troubling. I believe this course of action represents a negligent misuse of public funds, driven more by ideology than sound science or economics.

I urge you to raise this matter in Parliament, question the rationale behind this spending commitment, and push for a reassessment of our national energy priorities. The UK deserves an energy strategy that is grounded in technological reality and fiscal responsibility.

Thank you for your continued service to our constituency. I look forward to hearing your views on this matter.

Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
3👍2