A government that has just caused millions of redundancies claims it will "create" 460,000 "green jobs".

It is the same promise the Labour and coalition governments made, a decade and more ago.

They didn't happen. And even if they did, they would cause unemployment elsewhere...
The UK will not be "carbon neutral" by 2050.

The government -- all parties, in fact -- have not tested the public's willingness to put up with the policies.

It does not know how much it will cost to reach Net Zero.

It does not know how it will be achieved.
What will happen is that the government will continue to announce new policies in line with emissions-reduction targets. This will cause economic chaos as companies try to find ways to accommodate regulation. Many will go out of business. Skills & trade will be lost.
Then the public will discover what Net Zero means. Their mobility will be severely restricted. The price of utilities and basic goods (food) and services will rise. They will required to spend tens of £thousands on their homes. There will be mass unemployment, lower wages...
In fact, Net Zero is a promise that Britain will *never* recover from covid19. We will always be in debt. And our ability to repay it will be pushed far off into the future, because of the massive outlay required for net zero, which will be passed off as Keynesian stimulus.
When the public realise what has happened, either UK democracy will have been either formally fully dissolved, or will have been plunged further into the dysfunctional chaos it is now, in which politicians think it is for them to decide what the public do.
The only way a government can enforce Net Zero and sustain its power is by pointing guns at people on the street.

Absent technology which does not yet exist, there is no low-carbon democratic government.

This technology is to Net Zero as the vaccine is to Matt Hancock.
Net Zero is *literally* an agenda of negative economic growth.

This inept, idiot, zombie Parliament believes that it can impose a future of hardship, and to manage the decline gracefully, without consequence. They think we won't notice if they call it "green growth".
I'm not making this up or being dramatic. The political and economic theory underpinning this has not changed in half a century. There is no departure from the original philosophy of this perspective in current green thinking. This was not cooked up by Marxists on a 'long march'.
It is a political and economic recipe for the restructuring of the world. It has not gone away. The armies of civil servants, fake academics and fake "civil society" organisations that are charged with delivering it have no interest in economic growth, only contempt.
The extent to which corporations and politicians have bought into it, and who claim that growth is still "possible" within it, is the extent to which those parties believe that *their* interests can be served by the agenda.

It doesn't matter what *you* think.
The green agenda will secure their interests: their wealth, and positions in society. It will protect them from democracy by putting decision-making processes out of democratic reach.

That's what is meant by international "agreements" -- they are agreements to suspend democracy.
If you still think I'm overstating it...

Ask yourself, when did any government, Labour, coalition or Conservative (or other parties elsewhere) ever ask for mandate to reorganise the global economy and to rebuild society in this radical way?
When was it debated? When were you asked to put your 'X' next to either a "yes" or "no" to such far-reaching policies?

When did the political establishment allow the design of the agenda to be subject to criticism and debate in Parliament, on airwaves, on campuses...?
It is *anti* democratic by design, at its core, in its fundamental principles. It is as ideological and inflexible as Maoism. It will call itself "democratic", but only give you one box to put your 'X' in.
Look. Here it is, as plain as day: this idiot doesn't know how Net Zero will be achieved, over a year after the policy wasa decided, yet he restates the government's commitment to it, all the same.

It's like saying I have a policy of being a billionaire.

Read @AlokSharma_RDG's bullshit!

They have decided a policy that they have NO IDEA how to achieve.

But, they say, they will deliver it "fairly" and "justly".

But NOT democratically.
The first thing that will disappear from the Net Zero agenda is the commitment to a "just and fair transition".


Because the only guarantee of "just and fair" is democracy.

It's not for governments to decide "just and fair".
If a government needs to promise to be "just and fair", then it has already admitted that the policy will create hardship.

For example, what politician ever had to promise that a policy of building a hospital or school would be "just and fair"?
"We promise that after we have put all these things out of democratic control that everything will be just and fair".

It's implausible.

What if you disagree?

Well, look what they do to people who don't believe that Covid policies are just and fair...
Scientists and academics get shut down and smeared rather than asked to give evidence and argument.

Protesters will get beaten up, arrested and prosecuted.

Political parties will offer no alternatives.

That's the precedent of "just and fair".

• • •

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!


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

15 Oct
Imagine not understanding why a seemingly scientific injunction to suspend democratic norms, reverse and constrain economic growth and limit material freedoms might have "politicized" the issue.

But it's the "deniers" who are "ideological", right?
It's all hidden in the putative equivalence of the link between smoking increasing the incidence of cancer and the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere.

But global warming is not cancer. Global warming is not even a first-order problem, as cancer undoubtedly is.
It's the way, way, way downstream consequences of global warming -- nth-order effects -- which are the alleged problems. They are very far from the scientific "consensus". They are not part of it. Very many of them are political. Some are categorically mystical.
Read 15 tweets
14 Oct
This fraud, using the *same* data has been going on for a few years now.

We know it's a fraud because you cannot accidentally produce the UN's claim in good faith.
Here is when I spotted the same fraud, a few years ago.

The New Climate Economy report produced by @NewClimateEcon, which is part of @WorldResources and chaired by Nick Stern is a project that cost the UK taxpayer £millions.
Read 22 tweets
13 Oct
If there is no such thing as herd immunity, there remains the problem that there may be no such thing as a vaccine.

Indefinite lockdown.

The arguments against both herd immunity and waiting for a vaccine, and against indefinite lockdown should be heard.

He doesn't want to.
He is immune to hearing.

The idea that one doesn't develop immunity to a virus one has overcome seems patently absurd to me.

How does one resist or overcome it, if it is not by virtue of a functioning immune system?

Not by lockdowns, that is for sure.
The claims about cases of secondary infection seem poorly evidenced, far-fetched and anecdotal. And convenient to a power-crazed lunatic's mission, whatever it may be, but which I very much doubt the good faith of.

I'd rather take my chances with the virus than the government.
Read 4 tweets
11 Oct
From 45 minutes to ready WMDs, to Covid's mode of transmission, there is a pattern to craven, morally bankrupt authoritarianism...

It is "denial" that vexes them more than the putative threat.
It is always about *denial*.

It's not hard to read this as terror about loss of control of narrative.

Accusations of "denial" are the shortcut to proving the interlocutor's bad faith: nefarious connections, sinister motivations, profit-seeking and malign intent.
Read 6 tweets
11 Oct
She has a good track record of brokering international deals that lead to strong and stable domestic leadership and strong public backing.
May's deal famously united the nation and gave her administration authority that no other administration in a century has enjoyed.
Read 4 tweets
11 Oct
And another. Quotes a line from the piece which is its fig leaf, as though it was not the piece's fig leaf.
The piece in summary is "There should be no expectation that scientists fall into line with a consensus.... Except that scientists who do not fall into line with a consensus are industry-funded propagandists who are only in it for the money".
Throughout the piece, claims like "it is misleading to suggest that giving up on suppression is anything but an outlier position" go unsubstantiated.

Even the WHO has now stated a position AGAINST lockdowns.

She's a bullshit artist.
Read 10 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

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!