- The UK’s Climate and Nature (CAN) Bill seeks to enshrine extreme Net Zero targets into law, demanding rapid decarbonization, the end of natural fuel use, and sweeping changes to agriculture and industry.
- Supporters claim a public mandate in necessary, but critics argue the Bill’s targets are unrealistic, unscientific, and lack broad public support.
- The Bill could lead to job losses, reduced farmland, food shortages, and restricted access to rural areas, raising concerns about its impact on livelihoods and freedoms.
- Critics accuse the Bill of bypassing genuine scientific debate and relying on biased, alarmist narratives to push through radical policies.
The CAN Bill: a radical agenda flying under the radar
The climate change cult are taking over the UK. After years of insane proposals, the UK’s Climate and Nature (CAN) Bill is poised to become law, embedding extreme Net Zero demands into the nation’s legal framework. Spearheaded by supporters like Labour MP Ed Miliband and promoted by figures such as Dr. Roz Savage MBE, the Bill mandates rapid decarbonization, the phasing out of natural fuels, and sweeping changes to agriculture and industry. Scheduled for its second reading on January 24, 2025, the Bill has quietly gained significant parliamentary support, despite concerns about its feasibility, scientific basis, and potential to upend traditional ways of life. With its roots in campaigns like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, the CAN Bill represents a radical shift in policy—one that critics argue threatens not only energy security and food production but also fundamental freedoms.
The CAN Bill’s objectives are truly transformative. It requires the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to achieve Net Zero emissions "as rapidly as possible," effectively ending the exploration, extraction, and use of oil, coal, and gas. Industries deemed high-emission would face closure, with workers retrained for "green" jobs. The Bill also mandates the creation of a Climate and Nature Assembly, tasked with recommending measures to achieve these goals. However, critics argue that the Assembly’s independence is questionable, as its "expert advice" is likely to be cherry-picked to align with the Bill’s preordained outcomes.
Dr. Roz Savage, a prominent supporter of the Bill, has framed it as a necessary step to "lock the science into law." Yet, this very assertion has drawn sharp criticism. Opponents argue that the Bill assumes a scientific consensus on man-made climate change that does not exist.
One of the most contentious aspects of the CAN Bill is its emphasis on "rewilding" and nature recovery. The Bill could require large swathes of farmland to be converted back to wilderness, reducing domestic food production at a time when global supply chains are already strained. Combined with the phasing out of natural fuel-powered shipping, this could lead to food shortages, rationing, and even starvation, critics warn.
Moreover, the Bill’s focus on "ecosystem recovery" could result in authorities shutting off vast areas of countryside, confining people to cities and controlled communities. "This isn’t just about climate change; it’s about control," said one farmer. "They’re taking away our land, our livelihoods, and our freedom—all in the name of saving the planet."
A flawed process and a dangerous precedent
The CAN Bill’s path to becoming law has been marked by a lack of transparency and public debate. Despite its far-reaching implications, the Bill has garnered little media attention, and many MPs appear unaware of its details. The Zero Hour campaign, which backs the Bill, has been accused of using alarmist propaganda to sway lawmakers. Its website features images of “Extinction Rebellion protests” and lists an impressive array of supporters, including 188 MPs, 54 Peers, and 799 organizations. However, critics argue that this support is built on a foundation of biased information and fear-mongering.
"The Zero Hour campaign is marking its own homework," said one parliamentary insider. "They’re presenting MPs with a one-sided narrative and expecting them to fall in line. It’s a dangerous precedent for how policy is made in this country."
As the CAN Bill moves closer to becoming law, its implications are becoming increasingly clear. For supporters, it represents a bold and necessary response to an alleged "climate crisis." For those who understand the propaganda, this law represents a radical and reckless overhaul of energy, farming, and freedom—one that threatens to upend the lives of millions. The Bill’s reliance on alarmist narratives, its bypassing of genuine scientific debate, and its potential to cause widespread disruption have sparked a growing backlash. Yet, with its second reading fast approaching, time is running out for those who wish to challenge it.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.