Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Ben Pile Profile picture
@clim8resistance
Aug 22, 2019 • 15 tweets • 5 min read • Read on X
As explained previously... They *ARE* going to take you car away.

I'm not making it up.

If you don't think that the removal of your car is high up on the political agenda, you have not been listening to them.
Today's generation of MPs don't understand why you can't just walk or cycle.

They have no idea what you use the car for or why you unimportant little people would need or want one.

You having a car is a problem they want to solve.

So walk.
"Reducing the cost [of public transport] relative [to private transport]" means taxing people out of their cars.

No political party currently sitting in Westminster has any intention of asking questions about that massive change to our ways of life.

It will therefore happen.
It's easy to get misled into believing that the climate change debate is about whether climate change is happening or is not happening.

Whether climate change is happening or not, it has become the basis of politics without regard for the degree to which it is happening.
This tells us that there is an *ideology* of climate change, distinct from the scientific facts of climate change.

"Decarbonisation" is more about transforming society than it is about transforming the ways we use energy.
In this transformation, governments and politicians believe it is their place to decide how you should live.

This is a radical departure from the principles of democratic governance.

Whether or not climate change is real, it is a ruse.
That is not a conspiracy theory. The dynamic is not one of a conspiracy, but of a degenerate political class & wider political establishment that has lost any meaningful connection with the public.
In a democracy, the principles of the political parties' green agendas would be tested.

The most basic question that would be asked is: "is green policy worse than climate change".

Despite alarmist claims, it might be better to suffer the climate change than try to prevent it.
The scale of green ambitions is no smaller than the scale of twentieth century ideologues' ambitions.

And all of the parties being committed to the same radical, political agenda means we are effectively living under a one-party state.
They dismiss all criticism as 'climate change denial'.

They admit no criticism to their discussions.

They are not interested. It would deprive them of their places, and their reasons for being there.

Banning cars is an extremely political act, dressed up as science.
An example, h/t @UKmacD

A news report that features no criticism of MPs, no intellectual curiosity about the ideology, no journalistic scepticism about the legitimacy of the agenda.

So what's the difference between @SkyNews and Chinese state media?

@UKmacD @SkyNews That's not hyperbole. It's a serious question.

If broadcast media and political parties are not able or willing to deviate from alignment with the government, what is the difference between a one-party state and state-controlled media, and our 'liberal democracy'?
@UKmacD @SkyNews And here's another.

No questions asked. No criticism. No interrogation. Just obedient, servile, uncritical non-journalism.

bbc.co.uk/news/business-…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Ben Pile

Ben Pile Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @clim8resistance

Ben Pile Profile picture
Sep 29
Good show, but far too generous - perhaps to the point of naivety - to the Conservatives.

It is currently fashionable on the right to identify Blair as the cause of all our woes, for his constitutional meddling. There is much truth to this, but it puts far too much credit at the feet of one man.

When the Climate Change Bill was being debated, the Tories' position on emissions-reduction targets was more radical than the then Labour government's.

And it was the Conservatives who went even further than the CCA, increasing it to Net Zero.

Those positions were not the result of being misinformed by civil servants, nor being unaware of criticisms of the agenda, as is claimed. Conservatives and their advisors knew full well what the objections to the CCA and NZ were. We can know this because we know that very senior Tories pointed it out to them -- including the consequences of antidemocratic constitutional meddling.

They chose to ignore those objections, to extend the climate/green agenda. Kemi herself, in office, wanted to repeat -- not repeal -- the climate agenda with the biodiversity agenda.

And now out of office, the Conservative Party is signalling that it has learned nothing by taking is initiatives from the green blob-funded think tanks formed by its former advisers, who got us into this mess.

The problems of the green agenda are not technical. They are ideological and political. And they are deeper than discussions about policy can address.
Here is a discussion on a BBC News show between Nigel Lawson and SoS @ DECC Ed Miliband, shortly after Lawson had set up the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

GWPF produced countless reports explaining the problems of climate/energy policy for MPs.

Lawson was not the only Parliamentarian raising the issue of Miliband's intransigence, ignorance and arrogance, characteristic of the green agenda's advocates.

Peter Lilley, in the Bill's debate, highlighted the problem, now identified as Blairite constitutional meddling: Image
Read 16 tweets
Ben Pile Profile picture
Sep 29
Ed Miliband here doing the accuse-others-of-what-we-are-doing-ourselves trick.

He's literally talking at an LCEF event. The Labour Climate and Environment Forum is the ECF-funded opposite of the ECF-funded Conservative Environment Network, but with the same grantors. Image
Image
Here's a list of ECF, and by implication LCEF, grantors.

It's billionaires, top to bottom.

Some tycoon's daughter way paying £20k a month for staff in @Ed_Miliband's office while in opposition.

You're a massive hypocrite, Ed. Image
@Ed_Miliband I would challenge @Ed_Miliband to produce any receipts whatsoever, to support his claim that there exists a "global network of the right".

He wouldn't be able to. The Guardian hasn't been able to. And even the ECF-funded blob hasn't been able, despite grants available for it.
Read 4 tweets
Ben Pile Profile picture
Sep 27
This month, George Monbiot discovered the green blob.

"The rightwing junktanks behind the Tories’ worst disasters still have the keys to No 10" he whinges.

Indeed, Net Zero is one of the Tories worst disasters. But that's not what he means.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
George is concerned that conversations @ number 10 about "growth" do not include his favoured organisations, such as No Foundation Economics and the Institute for Public Policy Making Stuff Up.

They instead include alumni of Tufton St, Tory-aligned think tanks! Image
"Who funds you" is the leitmotif of George's analysis of all Westminster politics. He believes that "dark money" explains everything he doesn't like. Image
Read 25 tweets
Ben Pile Profile picture
Aug 24
By my calcs, and on these stats a battery that could power the UK for a two-week midwinter Dunkelflaute would cost £5.8 trillion, and occupy a site with a footprint of 536 square miles, or a square area 23 miles long on each side.
"But the costs of battery storage are coming down!"

Not if you're buying trillions of quids' worth, they ain't.
"But we're not going to buy them all in one go, Net Zero is 2050."

And if Britain really is "leading the world" in green policy, then everyone else is going to be buying them, too, at the same rate.

Xi says "thanks".
Read 11 tweets
Ben Pile Profile picture
Aug 4
This chap thinks that offshore wind farms grow like seaweed from the seafloor, and that their roots burrow massive trenches across the sea floor all the way to the coast, where they bud into substations to connect to the Grid. Wind is free, you see.

Bonkers. Utterly nuts.
There's a lot of it about. I get dozens of replies like this a day from people, some claiming academic expertise, who are strongly convinced that they know that wind is free, but have never looked at the very simple arithmetic.
Renewable energy is invariably more:

* capital intensive
* resource intensive
* labour intensive
* land intensive

... than conventional energy production. Yet people still believe it is 'free' or cheaper.

It's an article of faith, not a conclusion of a rational process.
Read 4 tweets
Ben Pile Profile picture
Jul 25
I don't think it is possible to overstate the profound unreality that dominates in SW1.

Even mainstream commentators are discussing the collapse of the established parties, the economic recession that has merely yet to be inaugurated, deindustrialisation, a deep crisis of values across the public realm, an immigration crisis that cannot be stemmed, prices out of control, even blandified high streets are disintegrating, and the risk of war...

Yet here is this plonker who believes that society and the entire economy can be reorganised, and the fact of policy failure can be washed away by glib, elongated gaslighting verbiage.

I went to extremely crappy schools. But I at least learned what the antecedents to the French and Russian revolutions were. Political correctness had already dissolved the English civil wars from the curriculum, but I'm pretty sure there are some lessons in that too. Perhaps Miliband and co went to even worse schools, but cannot think it possible that they are mistaken.

I'm not talking about £300 sparking revolutions here. I am talking about the catastrophic indifference to others epitomised by such idiot zealots that believe elections are mere formalities and a sideshow to coronations, whose agendas are set by higher courts.

I get called a "denier" and "big oil funded" -- neither of which is true. My fundamental question has always been: what kind of world do adherents to green ideology want to create and on what basis do they assume legitimacy for their projects?
For those who are preoccupied by "The Science"...

If you can't interrogate ideology, you don't know what science says. And that is because you don't know what you've told it or asked it.
Too many people believe that science is objectivity rather than the attempt towards objectivity. And too many believe that what science seemingly says is self-evident. But if the putative facts that science produces were self evident, then we would have no need of science.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(