* @lwhitmarsh, chair of UK Centre for Climate Change & Social Transformations (CAST)
* Former @UKERCHQ chair & chair of @theCCC's Net-Zero Advisory Group, Jim Watson.
No bias there then.
These four biased leads were then free to chose the speakers that the Climate Assembly would hear from.
I shall not tag them each in here, but they included:
* An XR organiser.
* A founding member of the UK chapter of EarthFirst!
* A founding member of Plane Stupid.
The speakers we nearly *all* drawn from the nexus of academia and activism, and academia and policymaking.
They were all presented as academics and experts.
Their backgrounds in political activism was not explained to the Climate Assembly.
The Assembly members themselves are no idiots.
But their choices were constrained and deliberately so, by the Expert Leads and other (ECF and EFF-funded) organisations involved...
And their votes have been manipulated by the convening organisations, as I explain in this video...
Here @ChiefExecCCC lets his subordinate tell an untruth about what the Climate Assembly report found.
Climate Assembly member's choices were constrained by not letting them vote *against* the options they were presented with. They were only allowed to express their support for the options.
This has allowed the convening organisations to misrepresent their votes.
MPs in the @HouseofCommons allowed this to happen because they were aware that the public do not share their consensus on #netZero.
They knew, because of work by the @GreenAllianceUK that they had no mandate for their policies.
So green organisations -- almost all of which are entirely or substantially supported by the ECF and EFF --had to find a way to claim that #NetZero policies DO have a mandate.
They arrived at the idea of Citizens' Assemblies, which seemingly offered an alternative to democracy.
Citizens' Assemblies may or not have merit. But the UK Climate Assembly was not a faithful instance of a Citizens Assembly.
The Assembly was not free to choose its own agenda or call its own witnesses.
It was often divided into groups by the convenors and Leads.
Members of the Assembly were not able to speak freely with each other.
It was in other words, nothing more than a focus group-cum-PR stunt.
But the idea that the Assembly can give Parliament a mandate only holds any water at all if you believe that 108 random people can represent 67 million people, and that the 650 MPs that the public DO select do not represent the public.
MPs recognised that they no longer represent the public.
The only way they can produce a mandate is by getting dubious special interest lobbying organisations and activist-academics to browbeat a focus group, depriving them of any inconvenient counterarguments or criticism.
The UK Climate Assembly was therefore modelled on 1980s timeshare selling scam techniques.
MPs had already let the public down in passing both the Climate Change Act 2008, and then increasing its targets to #NetZero in 2019.
They have now even further undermined democracy.
It is not possible to fully list the dangers this creates. The #NetZero policy is so far-reaching, and so encompassing of all areas of policy that every other policy area and duty of all levels of government come under its scope.
Yet there is zero scrutiny of it in Parliament.
Instead, Parliament has deferred all policy design to @theCCCuk, led by deeply conflicted Peers, and ambitious and intransigent civil servants, led by special interest lobbying organisations like the @GreenAllianceUK.
E.g:
Since the mid-2000s, the public has been entirely excluded from this policy-making process.
It has been urged on by billionaire-funded NGOs, and the false promises of green tech salesmen.
The only things approximate to a "mandate" are opinion polls, and a 108 member panel.
If MPs do not realise their mistake, and allow the public a FULL and proper choice on the most radical policy agenda in the history of our democracy, then it will be the end of our democracy.
Who knows where we go from there.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"The survey was conducted by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), analysts at the University of Oxford, and NGO partners using a new approach: mobile gaming."
Seriously...
"From October 7 to December 4, 2020, advertisements in popular mobile games like Angry Birds and Words With Friends were replaced by the survey in 17 languages. "
That's not how "the people" express their voices, Greenpeace.
I'm guessing here, but I don't think the authors of this article have much experience in engineering or installing home heating systems, and I don't get the impression that they are particularly interested in hearing criticisms from those that do, either.
These are wonks.
They 'research' 'innovation', but ultimately believe that R&D is just a question of policy and funding.
It's political will alone that will make airsource heat pumps viable, you see. And you'll have one, whether or not you want one, or you will freeze.
This is a remarkable admission that the thing lacking from the climate agenda is democracy, and that the likes of WEF and Davos man want to find a way around that problem without resorting to actually testing 'collective will'.
"Our main focus is to identify key stakeholders, whether from the corporate world, whether from NGOs, who really get that and really want to push the boundaries to do transformative work, and to hopefully create an unstoppable force".
Rather than asking people want they want.
It's not enough for these resetters and better-builders to set out their pitch, and to persuade people, through democracy, to make the world a 'better' place.
I once interviewed a policeman during Blair's term. Off camera, he told me that he had been turned into a kind of social worker. We had to be creative to find a way of saying it on camera so that he didn't get fired.