Saturday, April 13, 2024
HomeReaders CommentsLetters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor


PLEASE send your letters (as short as you like) to and mark them ‘for possible publication’. We need your name and if possible, a county address, eg Yorkshire or London. We will include biographical details if you volunteer them. Letters may be shortened.


A breath of fresh air

Dear Editor

I was only too delighted to send you a donation this week after your call for help to keep TCW going. You are such a breath of fresh air in a world where I feel constantly strangled. The MSM is such a disappointment. You cannot disappear.

Bill Henthorne


Out and proud on the Covid hoax

Dear Editor

How refreshing to hear Mike Yeadon suggest Covid never actually existed in the way they told us it did. Some of us thought we were going mad back then, not through looking out for symptoms and staying at home, but rather by being silenced. Now we’re out and proud, it feels so much better.

Derek Longparish


The Walter Mitty world of Net Zero

Dear Editor


The UK has halved its COemissions since 1990 and our government was planning to reduce our CO2 emissions to zero by 2050, without asking us. But the UN is even more out of touch with reality and now demands that we bring the date forward to 2040 – apparently with no concern for the impact which that will have on fuel poverty.

Based on past experience, our government will not want to be out of favour with its UN puppet masters and may well follow meekly. The information below is for those who might want to warn their MPs against such passive subservience.

Ninety-seven per cent of the annual increase in global CO2 levels is from natural causes, driven mainly by the sun. The remaining 3 per cent of that increase is emitted by human activities, and 1 per cent of that 3 per cent comes from the UK.

Between 1960 and 2020 the average rise in global CO2 levels was 1.6 parts per million (ppm) a year. One per cent of 3 per cent of that would have equated to 0.00048ppm. At that rate it would take the UK around 3,000 years to raise CO2 levels by 1.6ppm.

To put that in perspective China emits more CO2 in 12 days than the UK does in a year. China’s emissions continue ever upwards while those of the UK continue to reduce. They and other big emitters – seen on this chart – clearly have no intention of following our lead.

Yet we are set to spend £3,000,000,000,000 (£120,000 per household) to decarbonise the grid, to which must be added the cost for transport, industry and agriculture.

That includes the enormous cost of energy storage needed to keep the lights on when there is little sun or wind, which is not paid for by solar and wind farm owners, who have already had many hundreds of  millions in taxpayer subsidies.

We pay around £120 pa per household in green levies, which equates to £3.6billion pa. Based on that alone, it will take more than £800 years to pay just for a decarbonised grid. It is also clear that National Grid does not have the skilled resources needed to install the new transmission capacity needed.

So the policy will exacerbate fuel poverty here, while driving more companies abroad, where they will emit more COthan before. It should also be clear that at the current rate of mining it would take several hundred years to obtain the materials needed to achieve Net Zero.

In penalising our own oil and gas resources we are making ourselves increasingly dependent on overseas fossil fuel supplies, relying on CO2 emitting tankers to import fuel, depriving ourselves of jobs and our treasury of revenue from UK companies, while increasing the risk of power cuts here.

We have neither the money, the materials, nor the skilled resources needed to deliver net zero by 2050, never mind 2040, and we are living in Walter Mitty land.

Roger J Arthur, CEng, MIEE, MIET

PS Please bear in mind that i) the sun is the primary driver of climate; ii) there is no global warming model which factors in all drivers and feedback loops; iii) IPCC predictions have been flawed; iv) natural CO2 levels follow global temperature and v) that water vapour has a bigger greenhouse impact than CO2.


Do they know something we don’t?

Dear Editor

I have today received a letter from my elderly father’s care provider that they have been informed by the local authority to make contingency plans for an ‘unplanned national power outage’ that could last ‘up to two weeks’!

Their exact wording was: ‘What would happen in the event of an unplanned national power outage (possibly up to 2 weeks)?’

Why do you think such a thing would come about? Possibilities:

1) A terrorist attack. (How would the local authority know about this in advance?)

2) The government switches the power grid off at the behest of the globalist psychopaths. Why? In order to ensure that after two weeks of no telly, no ability to cook, no lights, no takeaways, no internet, no baths or showers etc, the beleaguered population would readily accept digital IDs on the grounds of ‘security’. A bit like the virus scaremongering to make people accept experimental shots. (Central government must have sent out a directive to local councils warning of this possibility, but not the real reasons why, obviously.)

Thought you might be interested in this as a warning to your readers.

Anne Buxton


Promises, promises

Dear Editor

The United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has called for scientists to serve up ‘cold, hard facts’ to push governments into making policies that curb climate change. Well, here are some ‘cold, hard facts’. Only five countries have legally-binding Climate Change Acts; the other 188 countries only made promises, which they are breaking as they ramp up their use of coal, oil and gas and build more coal-fired plants. Then there is Mother Nature with her earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis creating havoc and destruction and greenhouse gases. Wars all over the world are creating emissions and the rebuilding will create even more. There are 27 live conflicts right now. Manufacturing tanks, submarines, aircraft and bullets all create greenhouse gases. How much greenhouse gases are being generated by the Russia/Ukraine war? Could China be about to invade Taiwan? China and Russia have held joint military manoeuvres. All this, yet climate zealots claim that wind machines, solar panels and electric vehicles will save the planet.

The UN’s primary purpose is promoting peace and security, so they should stick to the day job and pay more attention to that, not climate scaremongering, since the billions they are spending on peacekeeping is not working.

Clark Cross

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.