The Green Alliance believes that the #ClimateAssemblyUK -- 100 people -- is a "public mandate".
The Green Alliance is an organisation which has been working in Parliament since the 1970s to produce a cross-party consensus on environment, AGAINST the public's interests.
I.e. by producing a cross-party consensus on climate change, the Green Alliance believed it could get MPs to vote for the draconian policies it lobbied for, on behalf of its billionaire and corporate backers, no matter what the public felt about climate change.
But this create a democratic deficit.
MPs were all on board the consensus. But they knew that their constituents wouldn't tolerate it.
But now there was a consensus, there was no possibility of debates, or contesting the principles of the agenda.
In other words, the public have been excluded from politics -- democracy has been abolished.
Literally.
To overcome these problems, the Green Alliance and its blob clients conceived of the Citizens Assembly.
Now, they want to persuade MPs -- i.e. the assembly of 650 citizens -- that the 110-member #citizensAssembly better reflects the views of the public than the election results do.
This is dangerous stuff.
If you do not think that the climate agenda is first & foremost about dismantling the democratic control of politics, it's because you have not been paying attention.
66 million people have just been excluded from the concept of a "mandate" by a special interest lobbying group.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This was very well known and understood in the decade before last, when exactly this phenomenon occurred with solar PV dumping undermined US and European manufacturers.
There is no need to prance around in front of infographics to explain European deindustrialisation. The fact is that UK/EU policies created a market for these products while undermining domestic manufacturers.
"Oh wow!", said the green lobby. "Look how cheap solar power is getting! Isn't China amazing!" They said we needed stronger climate targets to be imposed sooner.
And the fact is that Sky News took it upon itself to abandon proper criticism of that policy agenda, to become an advocate for green policies. It even had a daily climate news show. It committed itself to becoming a political campaigning organisation, to lead its audience towards supporting climate policies.
This PowerPoint-contemporary dance performance tells the story that critics were pointing out two decades ago.
No. It's not a perfect storm, Ed.
Perfect storms are unpredictable. Nobody knows quite how and when the meteorological forces will align and multiply.
Many people were warning of this outcome. Why did Sky news prefer instead to produce propaganda?
1. The Quadrature Foundation, which gave a £4 million donation to the Labour Party, and from where the government's new Climate Envoy, Rachel Kyte emerged.
2. The European Climate Foundation, which turns dark money from green billionaires into grants for climate campaigning organisations, including XR. It does not declare who its grantors or grantees are, but is largely controlled by hedge fund billionaire Christopher Hohn.
Quadrature Climate Foundation's (QCF) grants to pro-Net Zero lobbying organisations VASTLY exceeds even Quadrature's alleged holdings in companies that have hydrocarbon energy interests.
It would make no sense whatsoever to fund climate lobbying organisations with more than a $billlion, as QCF has, for the sake of an alleged interest in hydrocarbon companies worth $170 million.
The question you should be asking is about the $billion of pro-Net Zero lobbying and its influence over UK energy policy.
There is a lot more to say on QCF's grantees, including how they create conspiracy theories about the funding of lobbying organisations and donations to political parties.
Here is one example showing how fake philanthropic foundations like Quadrature spend VAST amounts of money on pro-Net Zero lobbying, and how there is ZERO evidence of the contrary -- fossil fuel interests funding anti Net Zero lobbying.
In fact, QCF grantees, InfluenceMap were so bereft of evidence linking fossil fuel interests to anti-climate lobbying that they had to count PRO climate lobbying as ANTI climate lobbying.
"Possible" needed the money because they destroyed their own image when they were called 10:10, and their adverts depicting the executions of children and other climate apostates led to their backers pulling out.
But they were outsourced PR for govt. Always were.
In this video of Cameron and Huhne declaring the greenest government ever, you can see a wonk (who I believe may be a PR for a major wind company) carrying the 10:10 logo, for some bizarre reason.
Preparation for this has been going on for quite some time. By eliding fundamentally distinct categories and even opposing arguments, the disinfo lobby has created the notion of online harms, and thereby the basis for policing political commentary.