Stop saying "it will never happen".
* There is a unanimous cross-party consensus for it to happen.
* A massive majority in both houses of Parliament, want it to happen.
* All public bodies are set to make it happen.
* Nearly all of civil society has lobbied for it to happen.
>>
* There is a unanimous cross-party consensus for it to happen.
* A massive majority in both houses of Parliament, want it to happen.
* All public bodies are set to make it happen.
* Nearly all of civil society has lobbied for it to happen.
>>
>>
There is NO mechanism to STOP it happening.
No political party. Very few MPs. No public agency. No quango. No NGO. Few civil society organisations.
So how is it going to be stopped?
You're *insane* if you think "it will never happen".
There is NO mechanism to STOP it happening.
No political party. Very few MPs. No public agency. No quango. No NGO. Few civil society organisations.
So how is it going to be stopped?
You're *insane* if you think "it will never happen".
You *ARE* going to wake up one day...
* with no heating in your home
* no car
* much higher prices for food, essentials, travel
* fewer opportunities for work, for lower pay.
"But I didn't think it would happen".
* with no heating in your home
* no car
* much higher prices for food, essentials, travel
* fewer opportunities for work, for lower pay.
"But I didn't think it would happen".
Climate change policy *will* be worse than the effects of any plausible climate change. By far.
Climate change policy is in a nutshell: the removal from the population of any democratic control over the material economy.
It does not matter what you think about the cost, you will have no recourse.
It fundamentally changes the relationship between government and people.
It does not matter what you think about the cost, you will have no recourse.
It fundamentally changes the relationship between government and people.
It is not inconceivable that opposition to the climate agenda will be prohibited.
It is *definitely* in their ambitions. You can find them discussing it openly in their own academic and campaigning literature, and in their attempts to use state apparatus to censor opposition.
It is *definitely* in their ambitions. You can find them discussing it openly in their own academic and campaigning literature, and in their attempts to use state apparatus to censor opposition.
One academic even proposed that prominent climate change sceptics should face the death penalty.
Others have called for climate Nuremberg trials.
There is an active establishment campaign to make "ecocide" a criminal offence equivalent to genocide.
Others have called for climate Nuremberg trials.
There is an active establishment campaign to make "ecocide" a criminal offence equivalent to genocide.
If that sounds dramatic, consider the options open to a political establishment which, in its entirety, is divorced from the public. It has pushed the agenda to the point that it is too big to fail gracefully, and its interests are invested in its continuation...
Power does not surrender itself. Democracy does not instantiate itself.
There is no precedent in peacetime history, of a government wilfully or through its own incompetence, creating such a burden for its population without the use of guns and tanks, pointed at citizens.
There is no precedent in peacetime history, of a government wilfully or through its own incompetence, creating such a burden for its population without the use of guns and tanks, pointed at citizens.
I've pointed out before, that the XR demands for net zero by 2025 would require such an extreme form of intervention by the government that it would be impossible to enforce, or to manage the political backlash without military force.
...
...
The government believe that they can achieve net zero by 2050 -- 25 years later than XR demand.
But already, demands are being made to bring that date, and targets within the net zero suite forward. (e.g. car and boiler bans).
...
But already, demands are being made to bring that date, and targets within the net zero suite forward. (e.g. car and boiler bans).
...
That is to say that the 'debate' within government/the political establishment, is about by which date can net zero be inflicted on the public without violence.
The point of which is to say that a) they will fail and b) that this is a VERY low bar for official thinking, and c) that they presuppose their own agenda's rightfulness.
