The thing with this poll result is that it will be interpreted by the green blob -- party activists, wonks in think tanks and fake academics -- as a reason to double-down on "communicating", rather than reflecting on their own priorities.
This is evidenced, of course, by the fact that these results were well-understood before the poll. For Eg., this @GreenAllianceUK report found that "for the overwhelming majority of people, climate change is a non-issue".
But despite finding that "for the overwhelming majority of people, climate change is a non-issue", the @GreenAllianceUK has sought ways to "build a mandate" for political action, all the same.
They *know* that they are anti-democratic. They just cannot admit it.
This is why the green blob needed stunts like the Schools Strike, XR and the Climate Assembly. They manufactured a superficial popular movement and public demand for the climate agenda, and agreement with the Westminster climate consensus.
But it was false, and mostly intended to convince themselves.
The support for the policies indicated by the poll should not be taken lightly. These levels are not going to improve once the #NetZero agenda gets underway.
Lacking domestic, democratic support for the radical agenda, the only way that it can be secured is in international political institutions.
That way, the public's wishes can be overridden by 'international commitments'. This is, of course, the basis of globalism.
Domestic democratic politics has been hollowed out, and decision-making power relocated above the reach of the hoi polloi.
MPs and legacy political parties love it. Billionaire-backed 'civil society' loves it. Academics love it.
Nobody else was given a choice, except when someone was accidentally forced to commit to an election pledge to hold an in-out referendum on the UK's membership of the EU.
#COP26 intends to forge a global institution that will be more powerful than even the EU in dictating the policies that member countries must enforce.
The haste with which they are rolling out the agenda is a recognition that their ability to sustain the consensus is weakening.
Brexit and Trump's election were serious setbacks to the development of that order. It is no coincidence that XR and the baby activists emerged in their wake.
And that is why all UK "news" broadcasters so *desperately* want to ram this agenda into their remaining audiences' heads.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"There is nothing unconservative about environmentalism – quite the opposite. Done properly, it can unite different strands of Tory thought, and tackling climate change is far too important to be ceded to the Left." -- @Madz_Grant
It should be obvious that if you need environmentalism to "unite different strands of Tory thought", then Tory thinking is disuniting and disunited. Environmentalism is not medicine for political ills. It is poison.
Yet it is what all dysfunctional political and public institutions have used to rescue themselves from their terminal mediocrity and irrelevance, and crises of legitimacy. The EU. The Royal Family. The Pope. I could go on... The green alignment belies deep foundational problems.
In what way will "legally-binding targets" to "restore nature" help to reopen the countless businesses that have folded? How will planting trees cut the millions on the waiting list? How will making life nice for fucking pigeons help recover the lost year of education?
Species are not in decline. There is no need for planting trees. The country is plenty green enough. And "legally-binding" targets merely prevent any possibility of building back anything that can help the economy.
This endless tree-hugging while millions and millions of people face an uncertain future is a symptom of totally degenerate politicians, political parties and Parliament.
IOW, it is a *feature* not a *bug* of green thinking.
The constraints on individuals' lives and on the economy are more important to the @IEA than the things they will deprive us of.
This is environmentalism. It is political. Politics is about priorities.
And that is why you will find no criticism of organisations -- ideological organisations such as the @IEA -- on the BBC. Here, for example, is @MattMcGrathBBC failing to cast any journalistic scrutiny over the IEA's agenda.
Fearmongering is about obedience. That's why "vaccine hesitancy" is now a thing in headlines. It is not about health.
Anyone with any brains who has studied vaccine debates over the last 20 or so years knows that any element of coercion generates vaccine scepticism.
Much of that scepticism was generated by institutions of medicine themselves. Many were as sceptical of big pharma as anyone else. And they fuelled conspiracy theories by trying to cover their own arses, rather than admitting error of judgement.
Medicine depends on trust. Trust between the patient & institution/doctor. *Any* institutional or professional arse-covering or politicking, or manifest agenda-driving instantly evaporates trust, and with it the authority of the institution.
"His comments come six months ahead of the COP26 meeting in Glasgow, where he'll be addressing global leaders and key decision-makers, after being appointed People's Advocate for climate change."
"We help organisations understand and influence public opinion through research and targeted communications campaigns. And we help businesses craft policy ideas that Governments can realistically apply to difficult issues."
Instead of each party asking the public to lend their support for each of the parties' policies, the legacy parties have adopted a model in which they all agree on the policies, and then hire stupid PR firms to generate support for them, no matter what level of support exists.