The prospect of the Climate and Nature Bill being passed into law has prompted discussion of its implications, both at Cliscep (here and here), and also at Paul Homewood’s site. However, grim though the implications of the Bill are, things are quite bad enough already.

Today’s Guardian features an article whose title and sub-title alone make it clear that the ongoing effects of the Climate Change Act (CCA) aren’t about to go away, and those effects will include massive changes to our way of life: “Starmer faces test of climate leadership with big decisions on carbon budget – PM will have to respond to Climate Change Committee’s recommendations on future emissions cuts with drastic changes in many sectors of economy” Specifically, it reminds us that the Climate Change Committee (CCC):

will set out recommendations on the UK’s seventh carbon budget on 26 February. At the core of the budget will be an overall cap on emissions for the years 2038 to 2042, needed to meet the legal obligation of reaching net zero emissions in 2050.

What’s the urgency, you might ask? Well, the problem is that we in the UK are already slipping behind the targets, and if we are to achieve net zero by 2050, as mandated by the CCA, then policies must be implemented sooner rather than later. The article reminds us that thanks to the Prime Minister’s grandstanding in Baku and the pledge he then made, the UK will need to have reduced emissions from 1990 levels by 81% by 2035. Mind you, given how lightly the PM regards pledges, perhaps we shouldn’t worry too much about his world stage posturing. On the other hand, the Cabinet does seem to be stuffed full of climate and net zero zealots (as do the government back benches, if support for the Climate and Nature Bill is any guide), so maybe we should be concerned after all. And it gets worse – according to the Guardian, the seventh carbon budget, to be issued by the CCC, will need to go further still: “by 2040, emissions should be about a quarter of what they are today.”

Naturally, the Guardian is all in favour, and rolls out talking heads to tell us there’s nothing here to frighten the horses. According to Ed Matthew, campaigns director at the E3G thinktank:

It is the opportunity to put the finishing touches to a project to rewire the UK economy, to make it globally competitive and help nature to flourish. The only question is whether our leaders have the courage to be ambitious and stand up to the vested interests standing in our way.

The only question? I appreciate that we all see the world in our individual ways, but I think there might be a few other questions too – such as, is this affordable? Is it sensible? Will it achieve anything positive? Is it practicable? Will it damage the economy, our manufacturing sector, our way of life?

Even the Guardian acknowledges that it is in fact a big deal. It notes that it will require not only the decarbonisation of the power sector, but also drastic (the Guardian’s word – not mine, though I agree) changes in many other sectors of the economy. EVs must replace ICE vehicles; a widespread of public transport will be required (by which I infer that far fewer people will be allowed to have – or perhaps be able to afford – private vehicles); homes must be insulated (despite the issues?) and gas boilers exchanged for heat pumps (despite the problems); big changes will be needed to farming practices; new techniques for industry (a casually thrown-out phrase, with massive implications); and tree-planting and nature programmes must “restore carbon sinks”.

The Guardian rightly observes that both the Prime Minister and Mr Miliband have very prominently, on the world stage, claimed “global climate leadership” for the UK, so it will be difficult for them to depart from CCC advice. Worryingly (to me, and I suggest, to anyone who cares about this country’s future) an automaton at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has been approached for a quote and duly parroted the official mantra:

Britain is back in the business of climate leadership because the only way to protect current generations in the UK is by making Britain a clean energy superpower, and the only way to protect our children and future generations is by leading global climate action. We look forward to receiving the CCC’s expert advice and we will set our seventh carbon budget by June 2026, in line with our statutory duties.

Even Guardian journalists have an inkling that this stuff isn’t going to be easy, whatever the spin climate evangelists put on it. The article points out that the first three carbon budgets were relatively easy to meet, as simply shifting from coal to gas and throwing lots of money at – sorry, investing in – offshore wind was a quick and easy way to reduce emissions (but never mind the price). But little progress has been made with regard to other emitting sectors of the economy – transport, industry, buildings and farming. Alreasy, the UK is well off-track to achieve the fourth carbon budget, which runs until 2028. The shift to EVs isn’t exactly going as planned, and the public’s fondness for SUVs isn’t helping either.

Agriculture apparently accounts for around 12% of the UK’s emissions, but the government has picked a fight with farmers, and co-operation might be in short supply. At this point the Guardian trotted off to obtain a quote from another of its favourite organisations – in this case from Tom Lancaster of the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (https://eciu.net/). He opined that the farming sector is well off-track and that significant acceleration in this area is needed:

Issues such as land use, production and consumption of livestock products and demand-side policies are likely to feature more prominently [in the seventh carbon budget] than in previous carbon budget advice.

I trust I’m not alone in finding references to “ demand-side policies” as being more than a little sinister. It sounds like a euphemism for forcing the public to change their ways. Reading on, it appears that my suspicions might be correct. Next up is another old favourite – Friends of the Earth. Mike Childs, head of policy there, is quoted thus:

The deeper cuts neededto meet a 2040 goal can be met through more people choosing greener, cheaper and healthier lifestyles,” he said. “Already people are increasingly opting for meat and dairy alternatives and choosing to walk and cycle. The path to net zero should lead to better quality of life, particularly for those who have been left behind financially over the last decade.

It’s all there. Deeper cuts – doesn’t sound like a consumer-friendly option. More people must “choose” lifestyles which he claims (without supporting evidence) will be not only greener, but also cheaper and healthier. Greener and healthier I might accept, but colour me unconvinced on the claim that such options will be cheaper. I’m also unconvinced that what is being referred to as a choice really is just that. More likely we will be hectored and cajoled, and ultimately given no choice. The precedent is there already, after all, with regard to official diktats regarding EV and heat pump quotas. As to how healthy it is to cycle or walk several miles to work in the dark, cold and rain or snow in winter, rather than driving there, must be a moot point.

The only glimmer of hope is that the Guardian article ends by pointing out that the cross-party “consensus” regarding these issues is not so strong as it once was.

If Badenoch takes issue with the CCC’s findings, or vows to unravel the carbon budget should the Tories take back power, it would be an unmistakable sign that the crack has become a chasm.

Here’s hoping. Happy New Year!

It’s hard to view the Biden administration’s last-minute moves to withdraw 264,000 acres of federal land in Nevada’s Ruby Mountains from oil, gas, and geothermal development as anything but an exercise in obstruction. This isn’t about protecting the environment—it’s about tying the hands of an incoming administration poised to reverse disastrous climate policies. In the waning days of Biden’s presidency—or more accurately, in the waning days of an administration largely piloted by climate-obsessed staffers—the White House has ensured that its progressive priorities will remain legally sticky, even as the reins of power shift to a more rational energy policy.

The Biden administration’s gambit, which proposes a 20-year withdrawal of these lands from leasing, conveniently includes a two-year temporary leasing prohibition while the process meanders through the public comment phase. This puts the lands off-limits almost immediately, erecting a bureaucratic wall for any incoming administration. Yet, if there’s one thing the past few decades of governance have taught us, it’s that no regulation or policy is immune to challenge when approached with the right mix of legal acumen and political will.

The Real Motive: Entrenchment by Design

This isn’t just about protecting the Ruby Mountains. After all, even environmentalists admit there are no known oil reserves in the area, with some lamenting that the “urgent threat” is gold mining—an industry unaffected by this withdrawal. Instead, this is the latest chapter in a broader strategy by climate warriors to create legal and procedural tripwires to stymie any rollback of their agenda. By initiating the withdrawal just weeks before the administration changes hands, they seek to cloak their decisions in the shroud of legality, betting on the complexities of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and potential lawsuits to discourage or delay reversal.

To their credit, it’s a savvy play. By using the machinery of government to amplify their ideological priorities, they’ve thrown down a gauntlet that the next administration will need to pick up carefully if it intends to return sanity to federal energy policy.

What Can Be Done? An Action Plan for Reversal

For the incoming administration, time is of the essence. Fortunately, this particular gambit, while troublesome, is far from insurmountable. Since the withdrawal is still within the public comment period when new agency leadership takes over, there are straightforward pathways to undoing this politically motivated maneuver. Here’s how:

1. Decline to Finalize the Rule

The easiest way to deal with this proposed withdrawal is simply to let it die on the vine. Under the APA, the incoming leaders of the relevant agencies—likely the Department of the Interior—have the discretion to review all public comments and decide whether or not to move forward. The Trump administration can simply conclude that comments opposing the withdrawal carry more weight and opt not to finalize the rule.

This approach avoids the procedural complexity of undoing a finalized withdrawal and sidesteps the two-year temporary prohibition. Once the rule is abandoned, the lands revert to their previous status, making oil, gas, and geothermal leasing immediately available.

2. Build a Strong, Reasoned Justification

If environmental groups or other stakeholders attempt to sue over the decision to abandon the rule, the administration must be prepared to defend its actions. Courts demand a “reasoned explanation” for any policy shift, meaning the administration must clearly articulate why the proposed withdrawal is unnecessary or harmful. The rationale could include:

• The absence of known oil reserves, rendering the withdrawal pointless as a practical matter.
• The economic harm to local communities, particularly in terms of lost opportunities for geothermal energy development.
• The narrow focus on oil and gas, while leaving mining activities untouched, exposing the withdrawal as arbitrary.

3. Rescind the Temporary Withdrawal

The Biden administration’s two-year leasing prohibition, implemented while the rule is under consideration, is another hurdle that the Trump administration could tackle directly. By issuing an executive order or agency memorandum, the new leadership can cancel the temporary freeze and restart leasing processes immediately. This might provoke legal challenges, but with sound reasoning and proper documentation, such an action is likely defensible.

Time to Call Out the Farce

What’s particularly galling about this whole episode is the blatant bad faith on display. The Ruby Mountains, as noted by the U.S. Forest Service in 2019, are unsuitable for oil and gas development, and conservationists themselves acknowledge there’s no viable oil to be found. The real aim here is to signal virtue to environmentalist allies while throwing procedural roadblocks in front of an administration determined to restore energy independence. The theater kids running this show are less interested in real-world outcomes than in satisfying their ideological fan base.

Conclusion: Undoing the Damage

The Biden administration’s Ruby Mountains withdrawal is a textbook example of using regulatory theatrics to pursue political goals under the guise of conservation. It’s not about protecting lands or species—it’s about binding the hands of future leaders with red tape and legal complexity. Fortunately, the incoming Trump administration has tools at its disposal to reverse course quickly and effectively.

By refusing to finalize the rule, rescinding the temporary freeze, and articulating a clear defense of its decisions, the Trump administration can ensure that America’s energy future isn’t held hostage to environmentalist dogma. It’s time to call out these games for what they are: an ideologically driven attempt to sabotage responsible energy policy. The new administration has the opportunity—and the obligation—to restore common sense to federal land management, putting the needs of the American people ahead of political theater.