Project Climate Vote campaign launches in Ramsgate

The climate project launch at Radford House

By Dan Thompson

People from Deal, Margate, Minster and Ramsgate joined environmental charity Greenpeace as they launched their Project Climate Vote campaign in Ramsgate.

The national campaign, which started in 2023, has the goal of getting people across the UK to sign up to vote with the climate in mind at the general election. It does that by training local people to go door-to-door, and to run local events.

The Ramsgate event, held at Radford House, was planned to be an introduction to the Project Climate Vote ahead of an autumn election campaign, but after this week’s surprise announcement of a General Election instead saw local people establish groups to start street campaigns.

According to polling by Ipsos, 84% of UK voters are already concerned about the impacts of climate change, and 72% of people think the UK is already feeling the effects of climate change.

Local environmental issues include sewage in the seas closing popular local beaches, caused by a combination of  heavier rainfall and failing infrastructure. Developers building on farmland, and the impact of new power infrastructure on Minster Marshes, are also hot topics.

But rising fuel prices, and poor home insulation are also climate change issues that have impacted local people. The UK has the worst insulated homes in Europe, and home heating is responsible for a fifth of the UK’s emissions that are causing climate change.

Meanwhile, climate change is behind a move to new industries, with a ‘Green Jobs’ campus planned to regenerate Ramsgate Harbour. The port already has a substantial green economy, with companies linked to offshore windfarms based there.

The Project Climate Vote campaign is not linked to any political party, instead asking voters of all persuasions to say ‘I’m a Climate Voter’ by displaying a window poster, and asking candidates questions about climate change.

To find out more or sign up, visit


  1. So we must force people to insulate their homes, turn the heating down and wear jumpers, pay more tax to insulate the homes of those that livemin social housing? Or do we let people have control over their own lives and accept that whatever the UK doesmis going to have next to no impact on the global levels of co2 production or the debatable changes these may cause to the climate.
    People want a roof over their head, a job and to earn enough to have a reasonable standard of living , how about we deal with those basics first, then look at the health service etc before going full climate emergency. .

    • I think we could all these things. I wonder at the money government finds when it wants it and the tax payers money used to subsidise large companies.
      Revise building regulation to force developers to construct decent homes that don’t contribute to climate change but actually reduce it.
      Use money making wealthy people richer to subsidise retro-fits to insulate homes and install things like heat pumps, rain water capture, etc.
      This alone will create more jobs.
      The UK impact may be small compared to USA, China and India but if we can do it (which we can) why not?

      • Because the countries skint, i and i expect many others have many more things we’d like to spend ,what little money we have left, on. And many of us don’t believe theclimate change message. There are many more things damaging so iety that would make a meaningful difference, the tiny changes in global co2 the uk might manage will achieve nothing in the big picture.
        So lets spend our meagre national petty cash on things that will help us have a better standard of living.

  2. “global levels of co2 production or the debatable changes these may cause to the climate.”
    It’s basic physics and chemistry.
    Fact No 1: Fossil fuels are made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen.
    Fact No 2: Burning these fuels produces CO2 and H2O.
    Fact No 3: Both these are greenhouse gasses; H20 precipitates out as rain very quickly, CO2 stays there for 1000s of years.
    Fact No 4: For a couple of hundred years humans have been burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate.
    Conclusion: at the very least, some component of global warming is man-made.
    As to people hav8ng control over their own lives, there will be limited scope as their homes are either burned down by wildfire or washed away by floods.

  3. Perhaps you could use some of your Climate Change views on converting people who litter just about everywhere.Thanet is the mist littered place in UK.Kent CC and Thanet Council also need guidance on how to keep our towns and County clean.The Motorways are appallingly littered.The bins in this area are always overspilling with litter and my road has never been swept in the 12 years I have lived.Also take a look at our drains.Half are silted up with weeds growing out of them.The council give the appearance of a dump so people sadly treat it like a dump.

      • So litter and plastic waste all over the countryside and coast doesn’t pollute our planet and prevent wildlife from flourishing…and not catching rainfall in our silted up drains doesn’t help plantlife to flourish when there isn’t a water source.If the Councils can’t get the basics right,what hope is there for everybody else.

      • If streets were swept regularly we wouldn’t get weeds growing in the roads and we wouldn’t have to spray them.Spraying toxins into the atmosphere is very harmful to the planet.Also if we swept the roads the drains wouldn’t silt up stopping water catchment.Water is the very source of life.I think you need to have a lesson in climate change.

  4. Isn’t it ironic that the “greener” technologies they want to use to “tackle” the climate change are significantly worse for the environment, both short-term and long-term than petrol ever could be. Strangers still that the people telling us we must buy these technologies for the sake of our planet are the ones you’ve got shares in these companies …. Apparently insider-trading is not a thing anymore.

    If they genuinely wanted healthy and cleaner technologies, why is it that the people who have invented other cleaner energies over the decades have had “accidents” to unalive them, or they’ve had their destroyed my the globalists.

    How is it that we were using electric scooters and electric cars in 1912 and yet we suddenly went backwards and here we are recycling that technology over 100 years later . so much for us, advancing technologically.

  5. Most of the posters here won’t be alive to experience the effects of climate change, and in true British fashion many of them don’t care as it won’t affect them. Thatcher’s legacy. Until we get rid of the selfish Boomer generation, we will continue to slide further into the climate abyss.

    • Everyone alive now is experiencing the effects of climate change.
      Heat waves, wild fires, deluges, floods, sea level rise. It’s all happening, now.
      Apart from the obvious effects of storms, fires and floods are the insidious changes to the oceans and the environment. As these warm up, there is an impact on things that live in these environments, whether they are corals, fish, crops, animals or insects. Climate change is, on a global scale, affecting the crops we can grow and harvest, and the pests and parasites that are invading our fields and seas.

      • I wonder why some people don’t think that climate change is happening when there is so much evidence that it it.

        • Apparently the moderators won’t let me post links. But if you do a search there willbe articles stating “2023 was the warmest global temperature in 2000 years”, which was well before there would have been any real use of fossil fuels and really indicates that global temperatures change naturally with the passing of time, ( think of the cooling periods leading to the iice ages and periods of warming that ended them.
          Without doubt global temperatures , but there’s considerable doubt over the effects that human activity have in those changes.

          • @steely glint I think you’ll find it’s hard to find a scientist who doesn’t believe humans have and are contributing to climate change.
            Of course our planet has gone through climate changes but none of the “natural” elements can explain current temperature rises.
            Also, even if the current “global boiling” isn’t due to humans the problem remains. And crucially, as a species, we are not at all prepared for the impacts on our lives.
            So we should be doing all we can to stop our contributions to climate change, what ever the cause.

          • To Gary Saunders , try looking at some of John Christy’s work. Though the great and good are quick to take down what is not seen to be “right thinking”, little contradictory work is done or published because it doesn’t suit the narrative and isn’t profitable.

            Again I ask, why ,if we’re now warmer than 2000 years ago ,this is attibuted to burning fossil fuels? What are the explanations for the temperature changes that led to the ice ages and their ending? Just because you can say that thereis increased co2 ,given evidence in the earths history, its a bit of a stretch to ignore past temperature changes and whatever led to them and say its all down to mans activities.
            How about we scale down the energy use of the internet by 90% ( there surely can’t be 10% on it that’s of any real value) as part of a co2 reduction drive and see what support that gets?

    • Hello, boomer speaking! Like many members of my generation I hate to see younger generations struggling. I spend a lot of my time plus anything that faintly resembles ‘excess money’ trying to assist my wonderful, pretty much middle-aged kids. Their early lives were nothing like as tough as mine was in the ’60s / early ’70s though. Think I suffered from malnutrition by my early teens due to poverty. Things got easier come the ’80s, but for many of us childhood was pretty basic and therefore environmentally friendly compared to that of kids & teens today.
      I don’t want to be ‘got rid of’ thanks very much and, also, my carbon footprint is, I would say, pretty small. Not big on consumer goods, very rarely travel by air, have a car but do very few miles, don’t eat convenience food. Okay, I proper hate myself now if only due to sounding smug. But just trying to convey the fact that you are greatly over-generalising.

    • Really, so what about the post thatcher generations , their addiction to excess calories and the cost to society that causes, the addiction to social media and the harms that causes ( people so engrossed in a fake life that they then can’t seemingly cope with the irritations of the real world.
      It would probably be seen that the thatcher years and soon after were some of the nations most prosperous in modern history and huge numbers improved their lot by working hard , perhaps something many today could try instead of wanting everything for nothing.

  6. There are currently mounting concerns that the Met office has fiddled with historic global temperatures record to exaggerate global warning …in the same way as planned in the 2009 leak of “Climategate” emails from staff at the University of East Anglia working in the HadCRUT project …. worth looking into

    • Good point. I will.
      Ah, here we are:
      “Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations”

  7. That’s a copy and paste from an old BBC news clip on the Internet ….in 2024 there are now current mounting concerns they were correct. It’s not unlike the government to be found out as not to be telling the truth years later.

    The narrative is fake and man-made, intentionally created and pushed into the mainstream to further their agenda.

        • “The Daily Sceptic is a blog created by British commentator Toby Young. It has published misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines[9] and climate change denial.
          No doubt you are aware of the “Scientific Method”. Scientists make observations of phenomena. They record results. They attempt to interpret and draw conclusions from their observations. Then, crucially, their findings are reviewed by scientists in other institutions, world-wide. The findings might be criticised, challenged, reappraisal or even withdrawn. Finally, the revised results are published in learned journals.
          To suggest, without good grounds, that a published theory is wrong is to suggest that the world-wide scientific community, spanning scores of countries of every political persuasion, hundreds of universities and academic institutions and thousands of scientists and academics are in cahoots to spread false information, to mislead the whole world for some nefarious purpose.
          I find that difficult to believe.
          On the other hand, there are organisations such as the one you refer to. Typically they use quotes out of context, cherry pick data or broadcast the opinions of discredited academics or nutters.
          And even if the Met Office/UEA results were questionable (and a number of international independent studies says they weren’t), the rest of the world’s academia still supports the opinion of the IPCC.

          • How many years were the comcerns over the post office and horizon, fobbedd off and officially denied? Same too regarding blood products. Tobacco was for years denied to have any negative consequences. Your argument has some basic flaws , the powerful are not to be trusted without question

      • Daily sceptic – “Concerns Mount Met office fiddles with historic temperature record in Exact way planned in leaked “climategate” emails” … google that to find the article. Doesn’t seem to allow me to post a link on here.

  8. Climate Change is the new religion. If they weren’t so worried about the knock-on effects, they’d burn non-believers at the stake!

  9. To “not invented here” I agree totally that those in power should not be trusted. I also agree that narratives can be hard to challenge when they become mainstream.
    But warming of our planet has had a very significant increase since the Industrial Revolution and more so since the 1970’s. This could be down to Earth being itself but it seems unlikely.
    Science is about many things but crucially it tests theories and the evidence for them.
    But my main point is, whatever the cause of “global boiling” homosapiens are not preparing for the known and likely impacts. To do so will mean massive socioeconomic changes for the majority of us.
    Your internet example is a good one, UK food distribution relies on wifi. Stock control at the shop, at the distribution hub, at the transportation centres, etc. So to remove internet would require complete change to this.
    Also warfare, offensive drones, intelligence gathering, navigation, guidance systems rely on the internet.
    As I see it though, we will have to face fundamental change if we do nothing. Better then to face such change in a way where we can plan and control it. As time moves on, however, our ability to plan and control diminishes.
    “Homosapiens will be the first species to self-destruct because it wasn’t cost effective to do otherwise” is a quote I’ve seen.
    We’ll see what the next five years brings. While all that goes on all we can do is keep trying and remain kind and compassionate, using anger and despair to fuel our actions.

    • Internet use in terms of improving trade and efficiency is a tiny percentage, we could easily do without social media, porn, youtube etc etc or at least curtail them by 90%.
      You’ve still not explained why the earths natural temperature variations over the millenia are now replaced by mans activities or even to what degree each plays a role. The usual suggestion is that the recent increases are much more pronounced, but this is disingenuous as the changes in geological timespans are unknown at the centuries level.
      We’re in danger of being fed a load of guff where if the doom and gloom doesn’t appear it’ll be said “ look how clever we were at defeating climate change” if it does it’ll be we told you so, we should have done more” where as in fact none can be conclusively proven and so it all relies on fear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


1 × 2 =

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.