Politicians, in their blind rush to net zero, appear to be assuming they will be legally indemnified
•Politicians “should be very wary” of “demanding the application of net zero policies”
TED Vibert’s response (JEP letters 15 December) to the abuse of some climate alarmists is absolutely spot on. The supposed climate “crisis” is a political and media construct with no basis in real science whatsoever. He correctly mentions a considered recent report from learned physicists Happer and Lindzen, and I have myself previously drawn the attention of your readers to the work of an equally eminent former Under Secretary of State for Science to President Obama, Steven Koonin, author of the book Unsettled?.
There is, however, another important lesson for politicians here. In their blind pursuit of “net zero” which is going to have very harmful, deleterious and possibly catastrophic effects especially on the poorest in society, they appear to be assuming that they will be legally indemnified in theiractions because of their roles as state legislators.
I would suggest that that may not be the case and they should be very wary about further direct application of their powers, whether that be by banning or taxing or investing or giving government guarantees or otherwise interfering with the daily enjoyment of citizens’ lives, based on a false and flawed doctrine of manmade climate change demanding the application of “net zero” policies. There is, to my understanding, no legal indemnity for decisions based on what could clearly be argued by competent lawyers to be fraud.
A useful test case may well be the suggested new tax on private jet owners using Jersey Airport, currently under discussion in the States Assembly. Owners may well have the deep pockets required to challenge the States to prove the legitimate scientific basis of their actions.
Rochez, Les Ruisseaux, St Brelade.
There is, however, another important lesson for politicians here. In their blind pursuit of “net zero” which is going to have very harmful, deleterious and possibly catastrophic effects especially on the poorest in society, they appear to be assuming that they will be legally indemnified in theiractions because of their roles as state legislators.
I would suggest that that may not be the case and they should be very wary about further direct application of their powers, whether that be by banning or taxing or investing or giving government guarantees or otherwise interfering with the daily enjoyment of citizens’ lives, based on a false and flawed doctrine of manmade climate change demanding the application of “net zero” policies. There is, to my understanding, no legal indemnity for decisions based on what could clearly be argued by competent lawyers to be fraud.
A useful test case may well be the suggested new tax on private jet owners using Jersey Airport, currently under discussion in the States Assembly. Owners may well have the deep pockets required to challenge the States to prove the legitimate scientific basis of their actions.
Rochez, Les Ruisseaux, St Brelade.