Susan

[Maurice Cousins @MDC12345678]

Yesterday, while political attention focused on the shocking Nowak case, Ed Miliband confirmed to Parliament what had long been expected. He said the Government intends to legislate for the Seventh Carbon Budget (CB7), committing Britain to cut emissions by 87% below 1990 levels by around 2040.

Under the Climate Change Act, ministers must legislate for the budget by 30 June 2026. Miliband has said the delivery plan will be published "as soon as reasonably practical".

Why does CB7 matter?

Politicians often sell Net Zero as simple substitution and "transition". Petrol cars become electric cars. Gas boilers become heat pumps. Aviation fuel becomes sustainable aviation fuel. Life then continues much as before but cleaner.

But the CCC’s own pathway shows something much broader and intrusive. It requires not only new technology and electrification, but managed changes in demand, diet, aviation, land use, industry and much more.

Aviation exposes the problem. Ministers can use the oldest rhetorical tricks in the book and claim that holidays are not banned, but the real question is whether flying becomes more expensive and restricted. With little evidence that SAF, electric flight or other innovations can decarbonise aviation at scale, demand growth will have to be limited using a mix of indirect and direct measures. As the CCC said in February, "Aviation demand can only grow if aviation sector technology roll-out progresses."

Diet follows a similar logic. Policymakers rarely dwell on meat and dairy, but the CCC pathway assumes lower meat consumption, fewer domestic livestock and land released from farming. Ministers haven't really started and yet we are already seeing the consequences. Milk, butter and beef are among the fastest-rising food categories, in part because UK policy has helped shrink domestic herds. Cow numbers have been falling by roughly 3% a year for the last decade.

This is why language matters. Sanitised terms such as "demand management", "low-carbon choices" and "land-use change" sound administrative. In practice, they mean state direction of ordinary life and a managed retreat from the freedoms of modern consumer capitalism.

Ed Miliband has been very explicit about this. In Go Big, his post-pandemic manifesto, he writes that the purpose of his climate mission is "to abandon this 300-year model of economic growth."

This is why the argument now comes down to trust.

For two decades, politicians like Miliband have told the public that the green transition would make energy cheaper and more secure. That promise has not survived contact with reality. In 2026, Britain has some of the highest power prices in the developed world. With so little spare capacity, we have also left ourselves more exposed to energy shocks, from the war in Ukraine to instability in the Middle East.

The next phase of Net Zero now reaches into family holidays, diet, farming and everyday freedom of movement.

Can we really trust the same political class that got energy costs so badly wrong to impose the next round of legally binding emissions cuts? They have failed to protect the public during the cost of living crisis. Why should anyone trust them to protect us from higher costs and taxes over the remaining 24 years of the "transition"?

The stakes at the next election could scarcely be higher.

[Susan @sgr1234]

@Victoria_Rixon Edinburgh A&E for.children has a poster up asking if you may be pregnant, aged between 12 and 55!!

[Ryan Cohen @ryancohen]

🎯

[Paul Joseph Watson @PrisonPlanet]

Airport departure lounge. 2026 and they’re still out there, like Japanese soldiers still fighting the war.

[Susan @sgr1234]

https://t.co/nCtTHl8pY6 you lot should find another job. Light rain showers and 6 degrees turned into snow. Bloody joke 😡

[Susan @sgr1234]

@WallStreetMav @WallStreetApes My conspiracy theorist brain came up with a thought that perhaps its being demonised so we all give up on pork, they stop rearing pigs, which in turn makes a certain group very happy and they technically don't have to ban it 🤔

[Susan @sgr1234]

@benwehrman Bloody hell 🤦‍♀️

[Susan @sgr1234]

@OAPJo Funny how its a "benefit" yet its taxable, not sure any other benefit is taxable.

[Susan @sgr1234]

@TheNorfolkLion The problem there was she stole from the needy, had she stolen from a multimillion dollar company, she'd have been locked up !!

[Susan @sgr1234]

@catholicgoat @DeaconGlover1 @CaryKelly11 Can you have fruit on the carnivore diet? I'm still craving
sugar, mostly jelly sweets. I'd happily just eat fruit instead.

[Susan @sgr1234]

@LibTearCreator1 Leave a dictionary for them 😁

[Susan @sgr1234]

@BohemianAtmosp1 So the pharma companies are just shifting their business elsewhere now the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) finally voted to END this universal recommendation in healthy infants.

[Susan @sgr1234]

@elonmusknews30 A

[Susan @sgr1234]

My grandson is autistic but also has undiagnosed ADHD. Been waiting 3.5 yrs for CAMS appointment. This boy is suffering mentally, his behaviour is becoming more and more unstable, yet no one will help. Everywhere she turns, their hands are tied. What the fuck do we do?

[Susan @sgr1234]

@egg335374 Shitty AI photo

[Susan @sgr1234]

@AwakenedOf They had these in our local Morrisons. You could see the staff get mightily pissdd off,trying to stock shelves then have to stop to unlock a door. Those locked doors lasted about 2 weeks,as between the staff being pissed and the public refusing to use them,they lost revenue!

[Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen]

They are coming for the children through digital ID

[Lewis Brackpool @Lewis_Brackpool]

NOW — The Bank of England has upheld its refusal to release documents on the links between Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) and digital ID systems.

An internal review, signed off by the Bank’s Deputy Secretary, Michael Salib, concluded that disclosure would have a “chilling effect” on deliberations and risk “destabilising speculation.”

Key points from the Bank’s decision:

- Documents include internal strategy papers and risk assessments on CBDC–digital ID integration.

- The Bank claims releasing even redacted versions would inhibit free and frank discussion and “prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.”

- Section 36 FOIA exemptions (deliberation and effective conduct of public affairs) were applied, alongside Section 41 (confidential third-party input).

- The Bank insists the public interest is already served by selected research it has chosen to publish, such as its report with MIT on “Enhancing the Privacy of a Digital Pound.”

This means that, for the second time in two years, the Bank has refused to release documents that could reveal how digital currency and identity systems may be linked in UK policy planning.

[Susan @sgr1234]

@RachelThieves @drhingram She's been hitting the photoshop hard too, half arms and legs 😂😂

[Susan @sgr1234]

@peruvian_bull 😂😂😂😂🤦‍♀️