Last year, 17 trade union leaders, including Jo Grady, University and College Union (“UCU”) General Secretary, wrote to Sir Keir Starmer and ministers to ask them to support the progression of the Climate and Nature Bill through Parliament. The UCU is a British trade union that represents over 125,000 academics and support staff in further and higher education.  These staff members are in pole position to indoctrinate students (young people) with ideologies they have either previously been indoctrinated with or are receiving financial rewards for disseminating a narrative.

The Climate and Nature Bill, formerly promoted as the Climate and Ecological Emergency (“CEE”) Bill, is an initiative of the campaign group Zero Hour.

Zero Hour, registered at Companies House as CEE Bill Alliance Ltd, has a team of 23 led by Oliver Sidorczuk and Dr. Amy McDonnell, who is also the person with significant control in the company CEE Bill Alliance Ltd. Zero Hour is funded by the Frederick Mulder Foundation, Marmot Charitable Trust, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and Polden-Puckham Charitable Foundation.

“The Bill was first developed with members of the successful ‘Big Ask’ campaign which led to the Climate Change Act 2008, and is now led by a coalition of UK campaigners,” its website states.

The “Big Ask” was a major lobbying and publicity campaign of the Friends of the Earth. “Labour takes credit for passing the Climate Change Act as a key achievement of the Blair / Brown years – and justifiably so – but the idea for a new climate law was actually conceived at Friends of the Earth (FoE),” Head of Policy at Green Alliance Nicholas Davies said.

By her own admission, Savage, who introduced the Private Member’s bill, has been an environmental campaigner for the past 22 years.  What she perhaps doesn’t realise is that environmental activism and climate change activism are not the same; they are often opposed.  Climate change activism results in initiatives that are detrimental to nature and the environment.

Demonstrating that the Bill was indeed a result of activism and not what was best for the country and its citizens, Savage opened the debate in the House of Commons yesterday with the words:

The Climate and Nature Bill has been four years in the making. The enormous amount of support that it has garnered from campaigners, trade unions, scientists, faith leaders, non-governmental organisations, businesses and especially young people.

Climate and Nature Bill, Hansard Volume 760: debated on Friday 24 January 2025

“Especially young people”?  Could that be due to indoctrination by over 125,000 academics and support staff in further and higher education?

Clarifying whose interests the Bill is serving, Savage said:

This country has signed up to various international commitments, but we still have work to do to fully connect them to real and measurable action. We need to close the ambition gap between what is needed and what is promised, and the delivery gap between what is promised and what is actually happening. That is what the Bill aims to do, because too many metrics are still heading in the wrong direction.

Climate and Nature Bill, Hansard Volume 760: debated on Friday 24 January 2025

Showing her true autocratic disposition, Savage told the House that her Bill was “not ambitious enough for a climate and nature Bill.”

And then, in what must seem to many a bizarre statement, she said, “The Bill’s guiding principle is that we have a duty to be good ancestors.”

What does she mean?  Has she lost her mind?  Very possibly, but she has also been programmed, bribed or blackmailed to toe the Globalist line.

Her remark is a reference to “international commitments” in the form of the United Nations’ ‘Declaration on Future Generations’, a nefarious agreement the Government and Members of Parliament – who are public employees – didn’t inform the public about.  Instead, some unknown unelected “representative/s” negotiated and signed the UK up to these particular “international commitments” last year.

Three political, non-binding documents were adopted at the UN’s Summit of the Future in September 2024: the ‘Pact for the Future’, and its annexes the ‘Global Digital Compact’ and the ‘Declaration on Future Generations’.  These documents were adopted by a select group under the “silence procedure” with little discussion and, as we have mentioned, no public participation or knowledge.

The Pact’s text marks a major break from, and a misunderstanding of, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the underlying tenets of modern international human rights law.   The Declaration on Future Generations contains, in typical UN-ese, ambiguous phrases such as “intergenerational dialogue” and “the needs and interests of future generations.”  It directs that a “Special Envoy for Future Generations” be appointed by the UN Secretary-General to support the Declaration’s implementation.  In short, all our lives will be dictated to by a selected UN envoy to represent generations not yet born.

Read more: Three New Pacts to Be Approved at the UN Summit

Who are the future generations? Who can represent the past, the present and the future for dialogue? Who decides on which dialogue? What legitimate actions may be taken? Is it acceptable to sacrifice the welfare of present generations in the name of preserving the needs and interests of hypothetical future generations, when we have little idea of their context or needs?

Similar questions apply to Savage’s dubious remark, “We have a duty to be good ancestors.”  Ancestors to whom? Generations who might be living in 100 years, 200 years, 1,000 years?  And who determines what “good” means?

If you still believe the UN, and the UK government who have signed up to the UN’s Pact without our knowledge or consent, have our best interests at heart – the following should give some much-needed reality.

On hearing of the Pact’s adoption,  Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh and Dr. David Bell said, “Without serious and independent assessments of the outrageous covid response, and without recognition of the UN’s technical, advisory and moral failures, any agenda forward should be assumed intended to serve the same authoritarian, and for the UN’s partners, very profitable aims.”

The same can be said for Herr Hitler’s Savage’s Climate and Nature Bill, which she believes is “not ambitious enough.” She openly implies that they are merely getting started and that there is more authoritarian “climate and nature” legislation in the pipeline.

Fortunately, for now, Savage’s Bill has failed to progress in the Commons because 120 MPs voted in favour of adjourning the second reading debate on the Climate and Nature Bill.  The second reading debate is scheduled to be held on 11 July.

“Some Labour MPs offered their support to the principles being pursued by the Bill, but the Commons heard it would not be pushed to a second reading vote following “fruitful conversations” between Ms Savage and the Government on how to make progress,” the Independent reported. “The debate was relisted for 11 July but it is unlikely to be considered further.”

Herr Savage threatened she would be working with ministers to find a way forward.

The Truth About the Climate and Nature Bill

Gorilla Science’s Martin Durkin, a British television director who directed the 2023 film ‘Climate the Movie’, made a short video to raise awareness about the true nature of Zero Hour’s Climate and Nature Bill a week ago, before yesterday’s debate in Parliament.  He warned:

“The Climate and Nature Bill now being considered by the UK Parliament is not just a threat to British freedom … it’s also a warning – to America and beyond – of where the global green agenda is heading.

“In the name of fighting climate change, it binds the British government to assess, monitor and regulate the production and consumption of goods and services, and all related trade, transport and financing. That’s everything.

“The Bill effectively justifies the suspension of individual privacy, consumer freedom, free enterprise, private property rights and pretty much every other freedom hitherto taken for granted in the UK.

“Some commentators have long been warning that the climate alarm is nothing but a smokescreen for a massive expansion of state control, nationally and globally – an invented scare used to justify the creation of an Orwellian state.

“The Climate and Nature Bill is a watershed for Britain. It must be stopped.”

You can see a list of MPs who voted in favour of the Climate and Nature Bill yesterday by voting “Noe” to the debate’s adjournment HERE.  You can read the first part of the debate in Hansard HERE which resumed after an interruption HERE.

Check if your MP voted in favour of this Bill proceeding in the Commons.  If he/she did, tell them why they shouldn’t have.  If they didn’t, congratulate them.  If they didn’t turn up to have their vote counted, ask them to put 11 July in their diary and keep an eye out for the Bill, or its aims, returning in a different form.

Featured image: Roz Savage taken from ‘Hire Official Sustainability & Environment Experts Today’