A thread in which a Blairite climate wonk counters @SteveBakerHW's claim that #NetZero is 'a “ruinous experiment”' by claiming it 'isn’t backed up by evidence', by only citing evidence from #NetZero advocates and wonks.
There's so much wrong with this.
There's so much wrong with this.
https://twitter.com/timbolord/status/1395770626779099143
It uses the authority of the orthodoxy's institutions to refute heresy.
Here, the @IEA's report is taken at face value, as though there could be no questions about the IEA's thinking, let alone its standing in domestic policymaking.
Here, the @IEA's report is taken at face value, as though there could be no questions about the IEA's thinking, let alone its standing in domestic policymaking.
https://twitter.com/timbolord/status/1395770632575586304
And here, it is the echo of the Stern Review's orthodoxy, carried forward by the CCC and others, that the cost will "only" be 1-2% of GDP. This forgets that those "studies" can be challenged, and were simply obedient to, rather than independent of Stern.
https://twitter.com/timbolord/status/1395770640825729026
We can dispute those claims of upsides.
In a healthy democracy those claims WOULD be disputed. Neither the good faith of the researchers who produce them, nor the ability of the government to implement them can be taken for granted.
In a healthy democracy those claims WOULD be disputed. Neither the good faith of the researchers who produce them, nor the ability of the government to implement them can be taken for granted.
Lord merely defers to convenient prognostications and promises of economic benefits -- prognostications and predictions of a kind that has characterised environmentalism's half century history of total failure.
https://twitter.com/timbolord/status/1395770645707886593
And this is still rationing. Who will hold him to account for the policy failure?
If the issue is not resolved democratically, then the accountability is not on the voter for having made a decision, but the wonks and panjandrums who forced it.
If the issue is not resolved democratically, then the accountability is not on the voter for having made a decision, but the wonks and panjandrums who forced it.
https://twitter.com/timbolord/status/1395770649109569538
And here is more deference to the blob.
The question is not merely "how much of a bill is subsidies", but, by how much lower bills could be if policies were designed in the consumer's interests: cheap, abundant and secure supply.
The question is not merely "how much of a bill is subsidies", but, by how much lower bills could be if policies were designed in the consumer's interests: cheap, abundant and secure supply.
https://twitter.com/timbolord/status/1395770654230781962
And yet more.
Energy storage does not exist at grid scale. It's a fantasy. It might be worth looking at. But the fact of its non existence should be addressed before policies that require it exist are imposed on us. And that is @SteveBakerHW's point.
Energy storage does not exist at grid scale. It's a fantasy. It might be worth looking at. But the fact of its non existence should be addressed before policies that require it exist are imposed on us. And that is @SteveBakerHW's point.
https://twitter.com/timbolord/status/1395770655900065794
And this is misleading. The CCC's own #NetZero policy recommendations indicate that behaviour change -- i.e. not technology -- will account for up to 62% of emissions-reduction.
https://twitter.com/timbolord/status/1395770659280654344
"Technologies under development" are not technologies that exist in the sense that they are now or ever will be viable.
They carry with them very real risks of failure, that will lead to policy failure.
Even "market-read" technologies have not yet proved themselves.
They carry with them very real risks of failure, that will lead to policy failure.
Even "market-read" technologies have not yet proved themselves.
And, at last, we find an agreement, that there needs to be a discussion.
"... we need much broader engagement ..."
Good. But should not "broader engagement" have been put before the policy agenda?
Isn't *that* the point of democracy?
"... we need much broader engagement ..."
Good. But should not "broader engagement" have been put before the policy agenda?
Isn't *that* the point of democracy?
https://twitter.com/timbolord/status/1395770661025554434
I.e., it is characteristic of environmentalism that the policy cart was put before the technology horse, and that democratic 'engagement' is ditto an afterthought.
Eg. Ed Miliband calling for a climate campaign, comparable to the civil rights movements, AFTER the CC Act.
Eg. Ed Miliband calling for a climate campaign, comparable to the civil rights movements, AFTER the CC Act.
Moreover, NB that Lord only wants "engagement" on his own terms: "on the trade-offs" & "how to manage them".
He's not willing to stake the broader agenda. That is categorically not a call for democratic engagement, but characteristic of controlling Blairite wonkery and ecodogma.
He's not willing to stake the broader agenda. That is categorically not a call for democratic engagement, but characteristic of controlling Blairite wonkery and ecodogma.
Why this wont work...
None of the putative 'evidence' that Lord attempts to marshal was produced in good faith, by objective and disinterested parties.
Nobody who would object to it was invited to participate in its production or to join the institutions that produce it.
None of the putative 'evidence' that Lord attempts to marshal was produced in good faith, by objective and disinterested parties.
Nobody who would object to it was invited to participate in its production or to join the institutions that produce it.
The think tanks, the academic departments named after their billionaire benefactors, the dubious global agencies, & the lofty quangos and NGOs that produced the 'research' work from an extremely narrow ideological position.
And they are extremely hostile to debate and criticism.
And they are extremely hostile to debate and criticism.
Even the academic funding organisations signal their ideological attachments to 'sustainability' in their mission statements and in their logos.
Environmentalism has been established in civil society, research, and in global and national political institutions without democracy.
Environmentalism has been established in civil society, research, and in global and national political institutions without democracy.
It can be no surprise to discover, then, that those organisations reproduce environmental orthodoxy.
We would not expect religious organisations to produce refutations of their religion.
We would not expect religious organisations to produce refutations of their religion.
So why should we expect academics and political institutions to produce refutations of their ideological foundations?
Lord does not want it to be understood that the agenda is ideological.
He wants it to seem to be purely technical.
It isn't.
Lord does not want it to be understood that the agenda is ideological.
He wants it to seem to be purely technical.
It isn't.
And we have no reason to take their good faith for granted.
In fact, their interventions demonstrate *exactly* that they are acting in bad faith.
Very, very bad faith, as it happens.
In fact, their interventions demonstrate *exactly* that they are acting in bad faith.
Very, very bad faith, as it happens.
And no, we cannot take 'The Science' at face value, either.
So the debate cannot be narrowed to Lord's terms.
It must start from the understanding that environmentalism is, and always has been an ideological movement, which now has a long history of failure behind it.
And it must recognise that that ideology has influenced 'research'.
It must start from the understanding that environmentalism is, and always has been an ideological movement, which now has a long history of failure behind it.
And it must recognise that that ideology has influenced 'research'.
Environmentalism must be seen in the light that any ideological movement from the 20th Century is now seen in.
And its adherents must admit it.
Until then, they claims to desire 'engagement' are for nought.
If you want to change society, you must win the argument with society.
And its adherents must admit it.
Until then, they claims to desire 'engagement' are for nought.
If you want to change society, you must win the argument with society.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
