Benny Peiser has been the director of the British Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) for over 15 years. The outspoken critic of climate policy is now stepping down. The Swiss magazine “Nebelspalter” was able to speak to him about the dangers of net zero and the goals of his foundation.
Benny Peiser, you have been director of the GWPF since 2009 and are retiring soon. What does the GWPF want?
Benny Peiser: We are an independent think tank. The GWPF was founded by Nigel Lawson, Margaret Thatcher’s former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and myself. Lawson, who sadly passed away two years ago, recognised early on that climate policy would lead to serious economic and political crises – especially if the West went ahead alone. Since our founding, we have been trying to educate politicians and the public about the consequences of hasty climate policy.
So your foundation is pushing for more reason in climate policy?
Exactly. Because in a time of apocalyptic thinking, reason is crushed. There is then only good and evil. All critical views are swept under the carpet.
You are certainly familiar with the accusation of being a climate denier. Are you?
This term is one of the main weapons used by apocalyptic alarmists to silence critics. It is like playing the Nazi card, so to speak. I myself have never denied climate change or the greenhouse effect. Human CO2 emissions have in all probability contributed to the current warming.
According to the IPCC, greenhouse gases have not only contributed to climate change, but are 100 percent of the cause of it.
This is a very extreme position that essentially denies that there are natural influences on climate change. I would question that.
What is the main position of you and the GWPF in the climate debate?
We do not have a collective position. There are experts in our think tank with different views. But we agree that there is not enough critical debate. There needs to be an open and broad discussion in both climate science and climate policy about which path is the right one. Instead, the leading researchers tell us that everything is already settled. Every critic is demonised. This must stop.
Do you personally want to prevent any climate policy – or are you just concerned about the right pace?
My point of view is that unilateral climate policy in which Europe and a few Western states go it alone is doomed to failure. Because developing and emerging countries want to catch up economically they cannot ultimately be forced to give up on fossil fuels. That’s why every attempt to reach a legally binding agreement at the UN climate conferences has for decades ended in failure.
Do you fundamentally question the goal of moving away from oil, coal and gas?
No. There is certainly a sensible trend towards decarbonization that is driven by technological development. But the goal of reaching net zero in just 25 years is illusory. It is expected that at least half of energy production will still be fossil fuels in 2050. We have to accept that decarbonization will take longer and cannot be prescribed by politicians. We are currently seeing on our continent what collective hysteria and forced climate policy leads to: Europe is on the wrong track and is facing an economic crisis. Now we must find a way out of this.
What do you say to someone who is really afraid of climate change?
It is difficult to dissuade someone from exaggerated fears. It is like trying to convince a devoutly religious person that the world was not created 6,000 years ago. However, we are seeing that a growing number of people are now much more afraid of the social and economic decline associated with climate policy than of climate change itself. They are then beginning to doubt whether global warming is really so terrifying.
Where does the Global Warming Policy Foundation get its money from?
We are financed by donations from members and supporters. A large proportion of the donations come from independent entrepreneurs who are concerned about the “cancel culture” in climate policy. But we do not take money from the energy industry or from people associated with it. Our budget is very small at around half a million euros per year. That is no comparison to the climate lobby and the green NGOs, who have billions at their disposal.
Are there dark forces behind your institution that pull the strings?
No. Our donors cannot determine what we say and what we publish.
The GWPF regularly publishes reports and studies by experts. Do you also lobby in the narrower sense, for example in the British Parliament?
No, we do not lobby or run political campaigns either. We only provide information that should have as much impact as possible worldwide. We are independent and not beholden to any party.
Benny Peiser, what have you achieved since the launch of the GWPF in 2009?
Back then we were lone voices in the wilderness. That has changed now. Unfortunately, many of the things we have been warning about for 15 years have come true: the costs of climate policy have continued to rise, Europe’s industrial and economic decline has begun. The promise of a green economy, on the other hand, has turned out to be a pipe dream. That is why critical voices are now being heard everywhere, questioning the net zero target. Our foundation has contributed to this.
You recently said in a speech that your successor as director of the GWPF will certainly have a much easier time than you. What makes you think that?
The political climate has changed in the meantime. Europe’s decline, politically, economically and militarily, has alarmed many people. Utopian climate policy has contributed significantly to this decline. My successor, who will be named soon, has it easier because many politicians have now realised that things cannot continue like this. Now it is a matter of developing and implementing radical reforms to prevent the worst from happening.
What do you attribute the change in climate policy to? Donald Trump?
Not just Trump. A change can also be observed in the EU. Here, climate policy has been the top priority for the last 20 years. That is now over. And there are more and more voices saying that the continent will not survive Brussels’ Green Deal economically and geopolitically. Of course, Trump is accelerating this development. America is now taking a different path. But this disillusionment began long before Trump’s second election victory.
A forced climate policy quickly leads to higher prices and economic damage. Protests from the population always follow. Given this, do you think it is inevitable that the EU’s Green Deal will fail?
Yes, it’s like socialism. Climate policy is also based on the idea that society and the economy must be controlled from above. The leadership determines what can and cannot be produced and which technologies are to be used. We are dealing here with classic socialism in green clothing – eco-socialism, which will inevitably fail and come to a tragic end.
Then there is no need for organizations like the GWPF. One could sit back and wait until this type of policy resolves itself.
That is true to some extent. But it is our job to bring about the necessary change of opinion as quickly as possible and thus avert further damage. And we must help to develop ideas on how we can get out of this mess.
What role will fossil fuels play in the future?
That is an open question. But I assume that oil, coal and gas will be important for much longer than previously thought. This will probably be the case for the entire century, unless there is a nuclear technology revolution that suddenly gives us energy cheaply and in abundance.
Is it all a question of technology? Will technological innovations solve the climate problem?
I am convinced of that. However, it is impossible today to know which technologies these are and what effect they will have. Technological development cannot be predicted. But a centrally planned eco-economy, as has been practiced in Europe for decades, is bound to fail.
Will the constant climate alarms wear off at some point?
Definitely. Above all, the realisation will prevail that we have to adapt to climate change one way or another. People today know very well how to protect themselves from floods, heat waves or storms – which have always existed and always will. The number of people who die as a result of extreme weather events has already fallen by more than 90 percent in the last hundred years. Adaptation works in every respect and is the best, cheapest and most effective climate policy in the world.
What role do the media play in the debate about climate policy?
The traditional media in general faces an existential crisis and are being challenged and increasingly displaced by new social media. Most people, especially young people, no longer read newspapers. Many traditional television stations are facing a similar crisis. This is partly the fault of the traditional mass media themselves, because they have sat on their high horse for too long and have lost the public’s trust. This is especially true when it comes to the climate issue, where many mass media have often proven to be pure instruments of alarm and propaganda. If the traditional media want to survive, they must prove that they can reform themselves and provide balanced information.
Will the GWPF still be needed after another 16 years?
I am convinced that independent think tanks like ours will be around for a long time to come. They are needed at least until open-ended and free thinking returns to universities.
As mentioned, you are now retiring. Are you stepping back completely?
No, I will remain on the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. But of course I will no longer be involved in day-to-day business and can devote more time to my own research projects.
Benny Peiser grew up in Germany. He studied political science, English and sports science and received his doctorate at the University of Frankfurt am Main. In 1993 he moved to Great Britain, where he taught at the Faculty of Sports Science at Liverpool University, among other places. In 2009 Peiser founded the Global Warming Policy Foundation together with Nigel Lawson, which he has been director of ever since. At the end of March, the 67-year-old will hand over the leadership of the think tank.