Campaign blog set up to examine South Thanet MP’s Net Zero Scrutiny Group statements

The move to greener cleaner energy

Climate change, the actions pledged by the UK to tackle it and the response of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group headed up by South Thanet MP Craig Mackinlay are at the heart of a new campaign blog.

The blog, Craig Mackinlay Watch, has been launched by ‘a group of climate-concerned residents’ who say the South Thanet MP should be supporting the UK’s drive for measures to eradicate the use of fossil fuels by 2050.

In 2019 the UK became the world’s first major economy to adopt a legally binding target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.

Some of the measures outlined to achieve this include insulating homes and business premises; installing low carbon heat pumps and phasing out gas boilers; replacing petrol and diesel vehicles with zero emission equivalents (electric vehicles); using ‘green, clean electricity’ rather than carbon-laden gas, with most electricity coming from wind farms in the North Sea or British nuclear reactors.

PM Boris Johnson

Prime Minster Boris Johnson says of the 30-year transition to Net Zero: “Removing dirty fossil fuels from the global economy will lead to the creation of vast new global industries from offshore wind to electric vehicles and carbon capture and storage.”

The PM says the plan will: “create and support hundreds of thousands of new high skilled, high wage green jobs.”

The government’s Net Zero Review says the policy will have significant co-benefits, such as cleaner air.

It adds: “Improved air quality could deliver £35 billion worth of economic benefits in the form of reduced damage costs to society, reflecting for example lower respiratory hospital admissions. Where these benefits allow for a healthier and more productive workforce, they can support long term growth and productivity improvements.”

But the review also admits: “There is significant uncertainty over the precise mix of technologies and their costs.” Those costs will also fall on the public through taxes and/or financial outlay for ‘green’ heating equipment, electric vehicles and possible price rises of goods and services due to businesses needing to adapt to new technologies.

The government will launch a Fairness and Affordability Call for Evidence to help rebalance electricity and gas prices and says it will work with industry to seek to reach cost parity between heat pumps and gas boilers by 2030. A number of grant schemes will also be used.

Net Zero Scrutiny Group

However, the Net Zero Scrutiny Group (NZSG), made up of backbench Conservative MPs, opposes many of the government’s net zero policies.

The NZSG says it accepts climate science but the policies for net zero are ‘uncosted fairytales.’

The group has institutional links with the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which says “predictions of unacceptable warming caused by more carbon dioxide are wrong”.

The NZSG is led by chair Craig Mackinlay and founder Steve Baker. They say people will be hit with huge costs for some of the measures, such as heat pumps replacing gas boilers and the switch to electric vehicles.

MP Craig Mackinaly

In a column for The Critic Mr Mackinlay wrote: “Air source heat pumps sadly fail to heat homes to the temperatures we are used to, cost more to run, work particularly poorly in winter, and require large water storage tanks. There is no technology to elegantly replace the gas boiler and I’m yet to find a constituent who would assent to pay out £20,000 to be colder and face higher bills.”

On electric vehicles he said: “The use of electric cars, which are already much more expensive than their petrol equivalents and have the obvious limitations of range and charging, are made more expensive if electricity prices rise to accommodate large amounts of additional offshore wind or expanded reliance on interconnectors from the continent supplying coal-powered electricity.

“There is little government planning to provide the millions of charging points, no thought as to the security or availability of supply of rare metals to make the batteries and even less thought as to the true CO2 cost of ore extraction, manufacture of the new cars, new batteries nor the nationwide upgrade to the electricity grid to supply.”

The Craig Mackinlay Watch group

The Craig Mackinlay Watch group says the Net Zero Scrutiny Group claims are not backed by scientific evidence.

Taking their inspiration from the Steve Baker Watch campaign, the group says it is monitoring Mr Mackinlay’s own blog and various other sources on which he relies for comments that contradict climate science, and will report them alongside current expert scientific opinion.

A spokesperson said: “Climate change is a critical issue and its effects will have a very significant impact on every aspect of Craig Mackinlay’s constituents’ lives: everything including their quality of life, standard of living and their food security.

“Mr Mackinlay is chairman of the climate-change doubting group Net Zero Scrutiny Group, a spin-off from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The group claims to be “highlighting and discussing the serious implications of expensive and poorly considered climate change policies” but their views are fringe theories which we say are not supported by mainstream science and often contain unsupported ‘facts’ which are not borne out by the evidence.

“Mr Mackinlay is very keen to highlight the costs of actions designed to avoid or mitigate the worst consequences of climate change. However, he doesn’t highlight the costs of not taking effective action or the climate consequences already baked into our future.

“Given he is the MP for South Thanet, Mr Mackinlay has been strangely quiet about the effects that rising sea levels will have on his constituents. Expert projections show that the annual flood level from 2030 onwards will result in the Wantsum flooding sufficiently for Thanet to be cut off from the ‘mainland’. On these projections substantial areas of land from Reculver to Sandwich will be under water.

In red: The areas likely to be below the annual flood level from rising sea levels in 2030 and beyond Source:

“Craig Mackinlay Watch is a cross-party, cross-religion campaign that has no axe to grind other than to ensure local people are told the truth. All the peer-reviewed scientific evidence indicates that climate change is real, happening now and is potentially catastrophic. We cannot delay action any longer.

“We believe our MP should be supporting the established work of the vast majority of experienced climate scientists rather than using obfuscation to delay the implementation of critically-important changes to the way we use and save energy. NZSG claims to be helping the poor by blocking ‘costly Net Zero’ policies, when in fact increased renewable energy generation and better home insulation policies could have averted the rise in electricity costs caused by sky-high global gas prices and stopped the funding of the Russian war effort.”

Mr Mackinlay says the Net Zero path will instigate “a social calamity for those in Britain least able to afford its cost.”

The Government advisory Committee on Climate Change has said the cost of the net zero measures would be £50 billion per year in 2050. Mr Mackinlay says the government’s own figures show the cost is more likely to be £70 billion a year.

He also says the UK should reconsider using shale gas – the process of recovering gas and oil from shale rock by drilling (called fracking).

He said: “Renewables have a part to play, possibly longer-term as technology evolves, but we have a here and now problem.

“We should be far further down the line in the replacement of our ageing nuclear plants now coming to the end of their useful lives. We should have been far further advanced in ensuring we use the gift of domestic gas that mother nature blessed us with rather than a growing reliance on expensive and potentially insecure foreign imports which prop up unfriendly regimes, the geopolitics of which are now very real on the border of the Ukraine.

“Should we ‘frack’ – I think we most definitely should as it would create tens of thousands of jobs, bring £billions in positive tax revenues and most certainly assist in the UK’s perpetual balance of payments deficit…

“I do not have any overriding objection to renewables and am positively in favour of the need to leave a cleaner world than we found it – energy mix is sensible but does our dash towards Net Zero give us – (a) Energy security, (b) Affordability, (c) Practical solutions that make life better, (d) Are the vulnerable and lower paid protected and (e) Is there a better way?

“The current strategy is failing across measures (a) to (d) which leads on to the natural conclusion of (e). Even if renewables could be scaled up and storage of excess electrical energy achievable at a reasonable cost, none of this can happen overnight.

“Even then, given the risk to the grid as is being seen with severe storms in the north of the country, is reliance on 100% electricity for all our needs for motive power, heating and cooking at all sensible? Gas will be an important part of the mix for many years to come no matter what the pipedreams are.”

Fracking was stopped in the UK in 2019 following pressure from climate groups and residents due to concerns that the process causes earth tremors.


The Craig Mackinlay Watch group is also on facebook – -and has launched a crowdfunding campaign at to raise funds to spread awareness, print leaflets to inform Thanet residents, setup town-centre stalls to hand out leaflets and information, and encourage residents to contact their MP about their climate concerns.

The Craig Mackinlay Watch blog can be found here

The Net Zero Review can be found here

Mr Mackinlay’s article for The Critic can be found here


  1. Mr Mackinlay says the Net Zero path will instigate “a social calamity for those in Britain least able to afford its cost.”
    Only if the Tory governmentcontinues giving large amounts of money to the rich and the fossil fuel companies, while taking money from the poor. It doesn’t have to be that way. and onshore wind generation is cheaper than gas.

  2. What an inspiring campaign to get voters to influence their MP to act for their future and that of their children and the planet.

  3. I am with Ramsgate Lover, this is about Tory Party and MPs receiving huge donations from gas and oil suppliers and distributors.
    I can confirm from my own experience, solar panels have cut my bill bill by at least £500.00/Quarter. There are other benefits of course.

    For an British MP, Mr Craig Mackinlay is well out of touch. The same can said of his fellow Tory Climate Sceptic.

    • Out of interest,

      Whats the size of your solar system?
      When was it installed?
      How much did it cost?

      Without a bit of background your claimed savings mean little.

      • It means that solar energy has cut his electricity bills by £500 per quarter.
        What more do you want?

        • Well if the system cost him 10k 10 years ago even with no maintenance cost the return is instantly halved and that’s without the opportunity cost of the capital and that the panels are a depreciating asset.
          When it was installed will affect the the feed in tariffs the system earns, which today are effectively zero so the date installed makes a big difference. The size of the system obviously dictates what you generate so again is a relevant fact.
          So just as people on here want to question and find the detail on Mackinlays statements , those that agree when they make similar ball park figure statements would perhaps back up their claims.
          Or are we only to question things we don’t like and blindly accept the helpfully convenient we do?

  4. Thanks for setting up this group! These climate change denying MPS need to be held to account. I wish you every success.

  5. What a good idea setting up this blog to scrutinise TDC’s claims. This council are fond of making decisions and actions without informing or consulting local residents and ‘marking their own homework’ when they are called out on anything.

  6. What a good idea this is! I completely agree with your campaign and just want a fair government that cares about the people it represents – without prioritising big money deals! Good for you all, will do what i can to support you but more people need to get involved i know

  7. Yes, Craig Mackinlay,is not the most reliable prophet of anything.The trouble is many, mostly the older voters, listen to the rhubarb and snake oil that the likes of Mackinlay,Baker, and other fanatics pour out everyday, because it suits their view on life, which can be precised down to things were so much better in 1950,and don’t forget we won the war.
    You can fact check Mackinlay till the cows come home,but until the good citizens of East Kent get the message, they will continue to re-elect duds and demagogues like Mackinlay.
    The fact that many of them were born after the war,and benefited from the post war peace, appears to have been forgotten.
    We scratch our heads in wonder at how so many of the Russian people can be duped by a bunch of gangsters into believing that they are being attacked by the west, when many here will not face the future, without retreating to the tropes of the past.
    I am afraid something really catastrophic, that cannot be bucked passed to the usual suspects, like the EU etc,will have to happen, but in the interim many lives will be ruined in the process.

    • Things much better in the 1950’s is often rolled out but is untrue. I was born in 1953 and can say life was not easy or better.
      We could only dream of the things available to most now. Not all us oldies are daft enough to vote aimlessly Tory. Some do for sure but some believe in truth, honesty and justice. Conservatives in government now have none of these attributes.
      No one said going green would be easy or cheap. Doing it halfhearted is almost as bad as not at all and our MPs just go with whatever policy will win them votes.

  8. My understanding is that Mr. Mackinlay and his group are not climate change deniers rather they question the suggested costs of net zero and how those costs will affect society.
    Would the group lookingminto his claims start by coming up with a real world figure to install a heat pump, any required changes to the heating and hot water system along with the insulation required to make it work efficiently, include the costs of disruption , redecorating , flooring etc to bring a typical 3 bed 1960’s semi to an efficient heat pump ready standard. Then compare that to Mackinlays 20k figure, i’d guess a real world figure will be higher. Then they can explain how these costs will be affordable to the average homeowner and that they guarantee that ongoing electricity bills will be lower than they’d have been using gas.
    Then perhaps the issue of electric vehicles could have a real world study, for a home with no off street parking and an 80amp incoming supply to the home, which is meant to supply the home and car with all its energy. A bit of insight into how the revenues from fuel duties will be recouped when we’ve gone electric would be handy too.
    Scrutiny and due diligence is a two way street.

    • For far too long we’ve enjoyed cheap fossil fuel driven energy.
      Of course there will be costs.
      It would have cost money to provide adequate lifeboats on the Titanic.
      But the alternatives to adopting low carbon energy are untenable.
      It simply isn’t reasonable to say that because decarbonising our way of life is going to be expensive we should drop the idea.
      The map in the OP shows ares of Thanet that will be under water. It doesn’t mention the storms, the heat, the disruption brought on us by climate change

      • No the map shows areas that in the opinion of those that drew it are “likely” to be underwater, but likely is an expansive term and offers no real prediction of it happening.
        I’m all for efficiency and reducing the fossil fuels we use, but the absurdity of offshoring energy hungry industry and then importing the products to then claim we’ve reduced our carbon footprint is risible.
        The idea that any cost is worth it in our quest for net zero is equally non sensical. It’ll make not a jot of difference to the global position in 30 years.
        The transition needs to be done over the next century , not rushed out. Society has more pressing needs in the uk than demonising fossil fuels.

        • “No the map shows areas that in the opinion of those that drew it are “likely” to be underwater”. No it doesn’t, it shows the projected annual flood level in 2030, based on a whole load of modelling and data that is conservative and validated by past results and the work of hndreds of scientists around the world. Prediction is exactly what it is.
          And if you think we have a century to transition then you haven’t been reading anything of value over the last 30 years. If we continue on the present course (as we are) then things are going to get very nasty well before 2050. Good luck, you’ll need a hell of a lot of it!

          • I’ll quite happily put my money where my mouth is , if that area has flooded due to global warming by 2030 , i’ll donate 5k to the charity of your choice. Only 8 years to wait. Are you equally convinced in your opinion?

    • If Britain had built onshore wind generation instead of pandering to Tory nimbies we would be self sufficient in energy and wouldn’t have to buy gas, and electricity would be a lot cheaper than now. We can’t roll back the Tory mistakes unfortunately, but we can build onshore wind much more quickly and cheaply than any other source.

      • Phil Shotton ‘pandering to Tory nimbies’ I suggest you look across the whole of the political spectrum for nimbies!

  9. Obviously, regarding transport, what’s needed is a very much improved and integrated public transport system. And fewer ridiculous car adverts.

    • Either you are an utter troll, or you have no sense whatsoever.
      I favour the former interpretation.

      • Why assume that I’m talking about you rather than (say) Craig?

        And if I’m a “troll”, at least I’m a positive one Mr. Doom and Gloom!

        See you at the Ramsgate meeting. Looking forward to shaking your hand.

    • “More Climate Change nonsense from the usual gullible mob”. Mackinlay and chums are not gullible, they just ignore a huge body of very solid evidence for their own ends, whatever they might be.

  10. McKinlay zupports any cause that has something in return for him. He’ll champion noise concerns for residents in Margate but gives not two stuffs for the screeching cargo jets he wants to land over Ramsgate every 10 minutes.

    His climate scepticism belongs in the toilet. He only protested about animal exports because it picks up the female vote. This sceptical codswallop from him is designed to whip up his Daily Mail voter’s into fizzing adoration. Someone’s got to take up the buffoon challenge now Roger is looking to retire on a world cruise on one of Tony Freudmanns electric barges.

    The challenge we have in South Thanet is no credible alternative for the Tory and Labour swing voters. We should be a target seat for them both nationally, but we’re not.The Tories can put up anyone and get a sizeable vote. Craig only stood here because of his UKIP sour grapes. How painful for us all.

    Coming next. Craig declares the earth is flat.

  11. Excellent. Craig’s nonsense needs challenging. Unfortunately the usually couple of posters here aren’t interested in facts and science.

    Luckily the majority are. Hopefully Craig’s days are numbered.

  12. Well done for setting this initiative up to examine the statements by Mr Mackinlay. What he says flies in the face of science and popular feeling in this country. You have to question why MPs like him are lobbying for fossil fuels. Follow the money… Russian oligarchs funding the Tory party and shady funding institutions in the US with interests in fossil fuels. We need onshore wind – we need incentives to insulate homes – we need to stop massive subsidies to fossil fuels. And we need to vote people like Mr Mackinlay and Steve Baker out of office.

  13. Not unless there is a credible alternative. The Tories could stand anyone and get a sizeable chunk of vote or win. Look at the KCC result. Unless Labour or the Greens stand someone who can appeal to Tory swing or Labour swing voters then we’ll keep getting the dreadful Craig.

    Standing anyone just isn’t enough. It won’t work. We need rising stars. Where are they?

  14. talking of tory slogans – what happened to ” strong and stable ” what a laugh that turned out to be ?

  15. I hope they’re watching everything our Craig does! There’s not much he does that is worth while. In fact I’d be glad if someone could point out any good he’s done in Thanet in seven years.

  16. Looking at the map of projected flooding, I can see that a few top Golf courses are due to disappear fairly soon if changes aren’t made. Does McKinlay know some of his most reliable voters are going to very unhappy with him if he succeeds in delaying urgently- needed switches to wind and solar.

    • Do you actually read the text with the map? If so could explain what the Annual Flood Level is , as i can’t see a definition. Anyone that honestly believes those areas will be underwater in 8 years really should be considered to be a bit lacking in critical thinking. The only possible way that will happen is if the sea defences are breached and left open and weget some big storms from the right direction. Seeing as thanet was an island in roman times and at that time had notional sea levels along the lines of thise in the picture would it not ,even to the most feeble minded ,suggest that conflating those likely flood levels with man made global warming is dishonest in the extreme.
      Though no doubt the authors are confident that most will just accept anything they write as its what they want to see.

      • LC, if you click on the button that says ‘Details and Limitations’ it gives definitions, sources, etc (unlink any climate-denier outpourings that are notably lacking in any rigorous sources). To help you, here’s what they say ‘Annual Flood Lewvel’ is:
        “Annual flood level” is used to denote the water level at the shoreline that local coastal floods exceed on average once per year. In other words, ten floods are statistically expected to exceed this level over ten years, although some years might have two or more incidents, and other years none.

  17. I wouldn’t normally agree with Mackinlay.

    But he has a point alot of people cant afford to save the world.

    Electric cars are not the answer and will cause huge problems when they come to the end of their life cycle to recycle.

    Going green is bloody expensive. I couldnt afford to buy an electric car with sure poor resell price. Plus I live in a terrace house so how to I charge it I cant park outside ?

    The middle classes and above might be able to go green, but not the working classes.

    • Your argument is a bit like saying that the Titanic shouldn’t be equipped with lifeboats, because it’s too expensive.
      The cost of *not* taking action will be immeasurably huge. Capital cities around the world, not least London, will be under water. The deserts of North Africa will spread into Southern Europe: Italy, Spain, Greece, Mediterranean coast of France. There will be vast mass migration as people head north into the more temperate lands of Northern Europe. There will be famine and drought and wildfires the like of which we’ve never seen.

      And you’re worried about where you’re going to plug in your electric car?

      There needs to be a huge step change in society. No more cars, no more flights, no more heating your garden jacuzzi to 30 C.

      Not so long ago most of us heated just one room in.the house, if we were lucky. Hardly anyone had private motorcars. We used the bus or train or walked.

      Going Green won’t cost the Earth: just the opposite.

  18. Funny how quickly some want to shut down any debate and not look at all scientific angles – while clumsily trying to slur others. Says a lot about them. Anyone who thinks toxic fracking is good without researching the implications and history, or doesn’t know about the ineffectiveness of many heat pumps (ask the owners) needs to explore wider. Greenwashing is clearly in vogue again.

  19. Have just looked at some of the links – what a nasty and ignorant little Facebook group. Very peculiar that Isle of Thanet News would want to promote something so ridiculous and simplistic, and propaganda driven. Clumsy and laughable propaganda at that.

    • Democrat, what are you talking about. There are no links on the Facebook group. If you’re referring to the blog then the links on there are sources to the underlying scientific arguments. No propoganda there. Are you Craig Mackinlay by any chance?

  20. Andrew
    Quote “There needs to be a huge step change in society. No more cars, no more flights, ”

    Why bother living ?

    Public transport doesnt work and is to expansive. That’s all just survive work hard go homework hard go home work hard go home than die !

    Sorry andrew but that’s not for me I work hard and want to enjoy life and see some of the world etc.

    If you are happy to live without any enjoyment that’s up to you

    • Not polluting the planet is not the same as not enjoying yourself.
      But you have to face up to the consequences of your lifestyle choices.
      By continuing to be profligate in your use of fossil fuels, you are contributing to the climate emergency.

    • Public transport does work, and would work much better if more people used it.
      And mire often than not, a train journey is both quicker and cheaper than the equivalent car journey, especially if you count the total cost of using the car, rather than just the fuel costs.

        • Yes, I have seen the price of a train ticket. I travel by train frequently.
          I’m also aware of the cost of diesel and petrol at the forecourt, the cost of insurance, duty, insurance, MOTs, repairs and capital depreciation.
          And yes, I have compared journeys by train or car, and discovered that very often a train journey is quicker and cheaper than a car journey.

          All of which is academic.

          If the planet is to be saved, then we need to get out of our cars and planes, otherwise we’re stuffed.

      • Depends where you want to get to. A friend travelled to Felixstowe recently, and had to get 4 trains. Driving would’ve taken half the time. Even some parts of Kent are difficult to get to by public transport (try getting trains/buses to Lydd Airport from Thanet!).

        • Felixtowe by train:
          It will take an hour longer than by car, not twice as long. And it will cost £18.40 compared with £25-30 (in fuel alone, never mind insurance, not, depreciation etc).
          Lydd airport? One train and one bus.

          • Complete rubbish. You’ve obviously not allocated waiting times between connections.

            And Lydd is more than one train and one bus, at least from where I am in Birchington (it takes two trains just to get to Ashford).

  21. There’s more to life than driving cars and flying to a holiday destination. Enjoyment doesn’t depend on these- I can tell you that from personal experience.

  22. Anybody here noticed, it hasn’t rained more that 1/4 pint in the last 2 months. For the 1st time in 15 yrs our water butt is empty & NO it isn’t leaking

  23. (a) I don’t drive, and (b) I’ve never fathered kids. So I have NO guilt about flying abroad once or twice per year!

    Also, with all this talk about mental health… STOP WORRYING EVERYONE!! There is so much to be joyful about.

    Have a great week everybody!

  24. Like others I like going to gigs and sporting events.
    But people want me to stop because public transport doesnt work and is way time consuming a d expensive. I like to drive because its easier, quicker, cheaper.

    Little old me isnt going to make a blind bit of difference. USA and China do alot worse than me.

    Going 100 green doesnt suit my life style I dont have the funds or time to use public transport.

    • It’s your choice.
      Be good if you thought about it. True, anything you do will make very little impact. But there are 65,000,000 in this country, and 65,000,000 “little old me” doing their bit amounts to quite a lot.

      • Yep, if everyone with a condensing boiler ran it with a flow temperature of 55 degrees or less, they’d get best efficency and the nation would see a visible drop in domestic gas use. BUT people soon say that the home takes too long to warm up and so wind the temp up. If your home doesn’t stay warm with a 55 degree flow temp its not going to with a heat pump at 40 degrees. It’s an easy experiment to do and will give an insight into heating your home and the likely need for more insulation and bigger rads.

        • My heat pump runs at 55C and is perfectly adequate for heating our house. You can get 2-stage heat pumps that output at the same (75C) as a gas boiler, although they are more expensive and less efficient (but still more efficient than any other heating mechanism). There’s an awful lot of misinformation out there (especially from Mackinlay’s group) that is promoted by vested interests.

          • How well insulated is your home , current epc rating would be a good guide. My gas boiler will perfectly heat my home at 55 degrees. But when i looked into a heat pump the costs were estimated at 50k plus 12k for a 3 phase supply to run it. I’ve opted for a back to brick renovation and insulation combined with a small gas boiler with larger radiators and pipework to allow for an easier to transition to a heat pump if i should feel it’s appropriate in the future.
            What CoP do you achieve with a 55 degree flow temp ? As my understanding from the advice i received was that such temps should be reserved for hot water supply and for space heating a flow temp of 40 degrees should be the design parameter to ensure most efficient use of a system.

  25. What a fantastic initiative, thank you to everyone involved because keeping our MP accountable is a full-time job.

  26. I am increasingly getting worried about who finances MPs like MacKinlay, Baker and a few others that are lobbying for fossil fuels.
    We know Russian oligarchs funding the Tory party to the tune of £2 million, because the Tory party refused to return this sum.

    So, are shady ult-right wing institutions in the US with interests in fossil fuels, funding opposition to a greener, better future?
    i AM GETTING V UNCOMFORTABLE about these allegations.

  27. Mackinlay’s Net Zero Scrutiny Group of 19 climate denier MPs is eccentric even in the Tory Party, where even Boris Johnson supports Net Zero emissions. Lets be clear that if you want less than 2% of global warming to avoid planetary catastrophe, you have to aim for Net Zero emissions, knowing that gives you the best chance. Of course the fossil fuel transnational corporations are fighting it and are funding groups like Mackinlay’s. The majority of us, certainly in Mackinlay’s constituency, would rather like our grandchildren to survive.

    • I don’t have grandchildren so – even in the extremely unlikely event of the “end is nigh” mob being right – I don’t really care!

      Seriously, it’s all in GOD’s hands, not ours.

      • God helps those that help themselves.
        Please rethink your Care Strategy.
        Perhaps a Priest may be able to help.

  28. This is Tory bashing on a huge scale but it should be about Climate change forget the red and blue idiots and do your best for the young folks future, so they can have one, us older folks were never tolf (when young) about climate change.

  29. Just quoting what it says on the National Rail website, and Google Maps.
    Not difficult to see who’s talking rubbish.

    • Why? The low cost airlines get subsidies from airports and fegional authorities in order to bring in the tourists money, they also carry freight ( which is one of the reasons low cost operators have low luggage allowances), it’s a very efficient industry as against our antiquated railway systems which are anything but.

      • Why do we try to stop people from jumping off tall buildings or cliffs, suicide is the only answer, let them do it.

      • You are mistaken.
        Aviation is the least efficient way of moving either people are freight. Rail is the most efficient.
        I note that, year on year, rail fares have gone up at inflation busting rates, whereas road fuel duty has remained unchanged until recently, when it went down.
        Aviation fuel has no duty levied against it.
        As for efficiency: I notice that their were huge queues at Manchester airport, due to staffing problems and system failures. No such problems were reported at Manchester Piccadilly.

        • Of course the railways have never had queues or bus replacement services. Rail is not suitable for lowvolume/ weight high value freight required as part of just in time procurement. My understanding re taxation of aviation fuel is that its an international agreement ( given the nature of the business) and so the uks net zero quest will have little effect on it. But thats its also a subject of great debate.

    • Not just the price though.

      It takes me 5 hrs to get to Manchester for my football, by car.
      Just done a quick look to use public transport and it will take me over 10 hrs to get to Manchester. 10 hrs by public transport and I havent even looked at the ticket prices yet !.

      So by public transport that 20 plus hours travelling. No way can I do that in one day. By car I leave at 8am and back home by 11pm.

      It takes over an hour to get from my house to ramsgate train station ! Car less than 10 minutes.

      I want to save the planet of course I do. I also only get one life and I want to enjoy my life by following my football.

      I went to Wembley from here a few years back it took ages, buses trains and tubes.

      Public transport has a very long way to go before it replaces cars. Public transport doesnt fit into my life. It would add over 2 hours travelling just for work. I dont think a bus would leave early enough for me to get to work on time ! And I only li e a ten minute drive from work !.

      • According to the National Rail website, a journey from Ramsgate to Mancgester would take about 4 hours (best journey time 3h58m).
        So, even if it took you an hour to get to Ramsgate station, using public transport would be quicker than driving.
        I’ve no idea where you get 10 hours from, unless you are quoting the round trip time.

      • Ah! I see you’re quoting the time for travelling by coach or bus.
        Well, if I went by road from Ramsgate to Manchester , it would take 26 hours.
        Much better by train.

    • No, Manston is one of the highest points in Thanet. It would make a superb windfarm though and opportunities for lots of green manufacturing, with lots of jobs.

Comments are closed.