Thread by @clim8resistance

What greens really mean when they talk about a 'war footing'. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

See also this. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7…

What greens (and green Labour) are calling for is Austerity. Not just austerity where there are cuts... They are calling for austerity that is deeper than WWII and the depression of the 1930s.

Why do greens and green-labour call for ecological austerity?

They have no positive agenda. They do not have any ideas about how to improve society. So they instead prefer the idea of a huge crisis that only they can save us from.

The 'war footing' allows them to control everything and deliver nothing. The 'crisis' excuses their incompetence and their indifference to people's needs and wants.

People who use climate change and ecological crisis to define their politics are all the same. They hate the idea of abundance and wealth.

The possibility of abundance and wealth changes the dynamics of politics. It means politicians must address people's expectations: that they can look forward to a better life, and that their children can look forward to much better lives.

Greens of all kinds want to dismantle that expectation. They want people to expect less, and they want to compel that expectation. They want to rule by what they claim is "necessity".

"Science" has nothing to do with it. Green claims are a quest for power, against democracy.

Greens have no answer to observing that their politics has nothing to do with 'science', and that their perspective is entirely *ideological*. All they can do is shout "DENIER" at it.

We can agree that climate change is *plausibly* a problem that we should think about.

But we should reject the idea that climate change *requires* the suspension of democratic politics and the forced reduction of people's expectations. We should see that as ideological.

But greens don't want there to be time to think about what kind of problem climate change is. They don't want a democratic debate about what the science says is the problem or what we can do about it. They want to compel drastic, far-reaching and extremely expensive action NOW.

But they *should* stop and think.

The most ecologically damaging thing possible is austerity. It forces people to raid the natural environment for resources -- fuel & food. Abundance allows people to demand better management and protection of the environment.

A democratic debate about climate change would reveal that greens -- and others, including all the legacy parties -- have created a story about a climate crisis which owes nothing to reality. There is no evidence of a crisis. There is only evidence that they have NEEDED a crisis.

A democratic debate would reveal that academia, like politics, has become degenerate.

https://twitter.com/FranWarren/status/1137658259714781185

The idea of a crisis is how public institutions now legitimise themselves, and seek to acquire power and influence for themselves. They do not seek to challenge their own understanding. Academia now studies fantasy, not the real world.

How do we know there is not a crisis?

There is no evidence of a crisis.

Yes, greens can point to a very *slightly* warmer global temperature. But *every* other prediction made by greens -- including what the consequences of climate change will be -- in the last half century has been false.

We are *less* vulnerable to climate change now than then.

That's not climate change denial. That's not even climate scepticism. It's fact.

And it is facts that should make us sceptical of environmentalism.

It is a fact that greens love the idea of rationing, even though there is no rational basis for it.

It is a fact that greens love austerity, and they think austerity is a virtue. It is a fact that there is no need for green austerity -- even if climate change is happening.

It is therefore a fact that austerity is green ideology, not science.

End.