You can quote several words to match them as a full term:
"some text to search"
otherwise, the single words will be understood as distinct search terms.
ANY of the entered words would match

House of Lords pretend to debate behaviour change strategy that will be used to further climate change agenda

House of Lords pretend to debate behaviour change strategy that will be used to further climate change agenda

The body advising the UK Government on climate change has said that 62 per cent of emissions reductions must come from “behaviour change and individual choices”.

In other words, the government must train people to use less energy.  Net Zero will not be reached by using renewables. It’s going to be achieved by reducing our living standards. And that’s the plan.

Read more: UK Government Must Change People’s Behaviour to Reach Net Zero

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

On 12 October, the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee (“CCC”) published a report entitled ‘In our hands: behaviour change for climate and environmental goals’.  In their opening summary, the committee makes it clear every government department will be required to use psychology as a weapon against the public to ensure we behave in line with what the climate alarmists demand.

Further reading: Covid PsyOps Are Now Being Used for Climate Change

On 3 November, the House of Lords held a debate on ‘Climate Change: Behaviour Change’.  Lord Browne of Ladyton raised the topic: “To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the advice that they have received from the Climate Change Committee that 62 per cent of emissions reductions involve some form of human behaviour change, what plans they have to introduce a comprehensive behaviour change strategy.”

This is according to a proposed addition to the draft report after the draft had been “considered” by CCC.  There were three amendments proposed, the second was to insert a sentence in paragraph 6:

The amendment was approved en bloc.  However, the final phrase “some degree of change in people’s behaviour” was not added:

Lord Lilley said: “My Lords, may I reassure my noble friend the Minister that the Climate Change Committee does not say that 62% of emissions savings needed for net zero must come from changing behaviour? That would require Stone Age lifestyles. The 62% figure includes savings from carbon capture and storage, and other technologies. In fact, my noble friend Lord Deben’s excellent committee sensibly says that 90% of carbon savings will come from new technologies and just 10% from modest lifestyle changes.”

Lord Lilley was one of the 11 CCC members who were present when the second amendment was approved en bloc. He was the only one who disapproved of the amendments.

And his reference to “savings from carbon capture” is curious as the report only mentions “carbon capture” three times.  Once in a table showing the top 20 actions that would deliver the largest emissions reductions and “require some consumer engagement,” a second time in the glossary and the third time in the paragraph below.

11. Moreover, 10 per cent is not even a minimum. The CCC emphasise that its ‘Balanced Pathway’ to net zero is not the only one conceivable – “there are multiple ways to meet the net zero 2050 target”. So, despite witness claims that life-style changes are “essential”, alternatives involving, for example, more Carbon Capture and Storage could in theory entirely obviate the need to adopt more frugal lifestyles. However, such alternative pathways would probably be significantly more expensive and therefore impact living standards negatively through even higher taxes and costs.

In our hands: behaviour change for climate and environmental goals, 12 October 2022, pg.133

The above paragraph is an extract from amendments Lord Lilley proposed and were rejected.  His proposal was an alternative to the three that were adopted.  The second of which is mentioned above in this article. Could Lord Deben’s “excellent committee” be pulling the wool over his eyes?

Baroness Parminter doesn’t seem to view herself as a consumer but her comment does indicate how far they are planning to go in removing our liberties, and this is just the beginning.  She said: “While the Minister cites the energy-saving website, I challenge him to produce any other examples from this Government of trying to give consumers the advice that they need about heating their homes, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, and about the food they eat and buy and how they travel.  During the pandemic, which was a successful example of behaviour change, we saw the importance of sustained, clear communication with the public.”

Although no one in the House of Lords thought to question the ethics of or what behavioural change tactics might be deployed to coerce the public to make “emissions savings,” the CCC report makes some recommendations:

Information is not enough to change behaviour; the Government needs to play a stronger role in shaping the environment in which the public acts, through appropriately sequenced measures including regulation, taxation and development of infrastructure. [emphasis our own]

In our hands: behaviour change for climate and environmental goals, 12 October 2022, Key Messages, pg.5

And then, during the House of Lords debate, the topic that the globalist oligarchs and their henchmen link more and more openly with the climate change/net zero agenda was raised – population control. Lord Anderson of Swansea, a Welsh Labour peer, enquired about ways to encourage the reduction of population growth, not just in the UK but in the world.  He asked:

“My Lords, one of the effects of climate change will be a moderation in the pace of the population increase of the world, which leads to desertification, deforestation and increased migration. How can we encourage that?”

Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…


We’re not funded by the Government
to publish lies & propaganda on their
behalf like the mainstream media.

Instead, we rely solely on our support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring you
honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy…

Just choose your preferred method
to show your support below support

Read the full article at the original website


Subscribe to The Article Feed

Don’t miss out on the latest articles. Sign up now to get access to the library of members-only articles.