Thread by @clim8resistance

The CCC is the epitome of post-Blair, Brown-Miliband era politics.

It represents the political establishment closing ranks against the public.

It was the moment that the idea that politics should represent and serve ordinary people's interests disappeared.

https://twitter.com/theCCCuk/status/1123838886831120385

Instead of serving people's interests, the political parties formed a consensus on how they would cement their own power, privilege and positions: climate change.

Parties dropped from their manifesto ideas about how to abolish poverty, and promised instead to save polar bears.

Whereas all parties had committed to tackling energy or fuel poverty, they committed to policies that increased it.

Rather than finding ways to encourage business and industry, they committed to policies that sent them overseas.

The CCC was established by the Climate Change Act. And it was immediately handed to some of the most corrupt and incompetent peers and their pet academics.

Those peers and their pet academics all had interests in green policy. They had set themselves up as consultants and in market intelligence firms to service the seemingly growing 'green economy'. In their sales literature, they boasted of their proximity to policymakers.

This was, in other words, the biggest opportunity for cronyism in Britain's history: a cross-party consensus, criticism and scrutiny banished from the media and politics, and an 'ethical' blank cheque from the public to special interests.

Nobody dared to question the compact between cronies and idiot zealots. To do so was to mark oneself as an agent of a big oil conspiracy.

Anyone who did would face the wrath of those cronies' pet academics -- themselves funded by climate change capitalists - billionaires.

This massive transfer of wealth went unnoticed because the cross-party consensus meant that elected representatives could only compete to be the greenest.

All that politicians had to do to excuse themselves from the mess was to promise that according to 'studies' they had commissioned, the price of green energy would soon fall.

What they did not admit was that those studies were produced by the CCC, by their pet academics, and by commercial interests. They were authored by the cronies themselves.

The consensus was formed before 'virtue-signalling' was even understood as a thing.

Here was the Conservatives leader, taking instruction from Greenpeace.

The CCC, then was the tool for a narrow group of interests to enrich themselves, at the public's expense, by drip-feeding climate change alarmism into the political agenda.

They were charged with giving 'independent' advice to Parliament, but were dominated by cronies, who were hostile to debate and criticism. Instead of responding to debate and criticism, they instead protected their interests with conspiracy theories and slander.

Parliament deferred all thinking and decision-making to the CCC, and the CCC refused to consider anything but that which served their cronies' interests.

This caused no real problem for them, because though energy prices and other costs had risen, only poor people experienced them. And no political party represented older people, and people on limited incomes.

And anyway... The environment... Do you want polar bears to drown?

After all, what's a few hundred quid on an annual energy bill, right?

But the CCC and the cronies herding an entire generation of zombie politicians became more ambitious.

Despite the weakening of alarmist prophecies in the face of empirical and observational science, the interests represented by the CCC began to demand more. Where they had sought a significant reduction in CO2 emissions, now they sought their elimination.

What could be wrong with that?! What could possibly be wrong with trying to stop pollution and saving the planet, and making a profit?

Well, there is a difference between making something somewhat more expensive, and abolishing a very useful thing.

Whereas paying more for something means having to go without that thing, entirely abolishing a thing means transforming the way we live... It means the regulation of lifestyles. It means changing society.

And that means transforming the relationship between people and the government.

A cross-party consensus on climate change means an agreement between politicians to change society and change the terms of politics.

The public would no longer be party to decisions about their own material interests -- fundamentally the domain of democratic politics in the era of universal adults suffrage.

So, you might see a policy that is designed to cut pollution and save the planet.

But what I see is a form of politics that is dominated by special interests, to transform society to better service those interests, by putting decision-making powers out of the hands of the voter

The CCC is not about tackling climate change or saving the planet.

It is about reorganising society.

That is what happens when you create and defer decision-making to technocracies and refuse to scrutinise them, their influences and their 'advice'.

Go and check for yourself. The CCC's *main* thrust is on "behaviour change" -- a bland euphemism for transforming people's material expectations. Which, to remind you is the fundamental concept in democratic politics.

They will decide for you how you may live, how you may work, and what you are entitled to.

There is no debate about it. Science has spoken.

They have decided, now, that all your emissions must be eliminated by 2050.

They have decided how warm your home can be. How you may get to work. And how much freedom to travel you will have, for the next 30 years.

They are not going to relax those rules.

That is very far from their purpose, eleven years ago, to decide how much emissions should be reduced.

They have designed your lifestyle. They have designed the economy.

If you think that's *policy* rather than *politics*, then the next 30 years are going to be an uncomfortable awakening for you.

It is as far-reaching a transformation of your life and the economy as it would be had all MPs arrived at Parliament today, and declared not a 'climate emergency', but that they were all now Maoists, committed to a Great Green Leap Forwards.

"Net Zero" is no less ambitious than a Cultural Revolution.

Recall, from the top, that the Committee on Climate Change emerged from the post-Blair era.

Yesterday in Parliament, MPs declared a 'climate emergency'.

The most crisis-ridden generation of MPs in the history of UK democracy, from the most crisis-ridden and defunct political parties, believe that the real crisis is in the sky.

They argued again to put political differences to one side, to address the 'crisis'.

What they mean is they want to save themselves and the rotting corpses of their political parties, not from climate change, but from democracy.

They will cement themselves into their positions using climate change.

Lost your job? Lost your home? Lost your savings?

Too bad: climate change is more important.

That's what "emergency" means. It means shifting the focus of politics away from its normal business, to suspend its responsibilities, and to grant itself exceptional power.

Whether that's what MPs mean it or know it or not, that is what it is.

That is why I have never taken the CCC at face value.

That is why I have never taken emissions-reduction at face value.

That is why we should not take "net-zero" at face value.

To take any of it at face value is to give a blank cheque to the worst MPs from the worst political parties -- and their cronies -- in the history of democracy.

To take any of it at face value is to suspend political judgement.

Which is what they want.

In the words of the Gilets Jaunes protesters: "they worry about the end of the world; we worry about the end of the month".

Climate change is the biggest fig leaf ever.

Footnote: Nowhere in the above is climate change 'denied' Yet that is how some are responding to it.

The above is a political argument about climate change *politics*.

Science has nothing to do with it.

Anyone who says otherwise is hiding their own politics behind "science".