Boris Johnson is taking a principled stand against the EU.
Next year, the UK is hosting #COP26, at which Johnson's government hopes to surrender any sovereignty the UK has reclaimed from the EU to another supranational political body...
In order to get the global agreement at #COP26, Johnson's government is committing the UK to draconian policies that will cost many £trillions, huge restrict material freedoms, and undermine businesses.
He thinks the rest of the world will follow the suicide pact.
So I don't believe the bullshit on ANY side of this Brexit deal. It's all performance.
Boris Johnson and the #netZero agenda are a threat to the integrity of the UK, and of companies, and homes, and livelihoods.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Labour will further exclude the public from political decision-making by outsourcing policy to unelected panels of people, who will be tortured into submitting to the will of the fake experts that will bore them close to death, before providing them with rigged questions, and then writing up their deliberations to suit the conveners, not what the 'citizens assembly' actually determined...
Read my analysis of the climate 'citizens assembly'.
This is a somewhat shallow and hollow attempt to circumvent the major problem haunting global climate politics for four decades.
It was the 'free-rider' problem: why should we commit to self-harming policies when others won't?
Those other countries were 'developing' when the first global policies were being considered. Now they are well and truly developed, and their progress is accelerating, while much of the seemingly 'developed' world is stagnating, thanks in large part to rising energy costs, owed in turn directly and indirectly to the green policies she is arguing for.
Ritchie tries to counter what she claims is a 'weak argument' with a series of arguments that are even weaker.
1. Rich countries – that have emitted the most – have a moral responsibility
Why? The data provided by her own project show very clearly that there are no adverse signals in fundamental metrics of human welfare that can be attributed to climate change.
Moreover, the same data show that affordable, abundant and reliable energy are key to that progress.
So there is no injury. And thus there is no moral obligation.
This work is an add-on to our @ClimateDebateUK/@Togetherdec report on air pollution politics.
We show how green billionaires and their fake civil society organisations are corrupting UK democracy at all levels of government -- international, national, regional and local.
My 'debate' with Donnachadh McCarthy on @petercardwell's @TalkTV show this morning.
Starts at 1h.46m.44s into this Youtube clip.
A discussion thread follows...
Unfortunately debate with green zealots is not possible, because of what I call the 'Femi effect'. As with debates about Brexit with Remainer activists, you end facing a machine-gunned litany of unconnected factoids, precluding any focus on facts, let alone coherent argument.
That means you have to try to limit what you respond to -- McCarthy wanted to talk about everything from ice cores to annual global temperatures and his solar panels, not the rights and wrongs of UK climate and energy policy. And much of what he said was simply untrue.
Charles should sit on his golden chair with his silly gold hat and STFU about things he has no business speaking about.
If he does not, then he forces the issue, and reversing the political establishment's preoccupation with climate will therefore require a new settlement...
You may well yet be a monarchist. But the idiot king has forgotten that it is degenerate elites, whose hubris, intransigence and arrogance are suffered by millions, who then remove them.
"Love" of monarchs does not survive hunger.
At the very least, the democratic deficit afflicting climate policy is going to cause a constitutional crisis.
The House of Commons is completely unrepresentative. The House of Lords is corrupt, self-serving and aligned to the blobs. And the monarch is a green activist.