If failure to stop a crime is equivalent to commissioning a crime, aren't all Police and all politicians guilty of narco-trafficking, human trafficking, murder, rape, kidnap...?
The problem being, of course, that @BBCPolitics "RealityCheck" can't check reality, because it would upset their favoured commentators and their shared orthodoxies.
That is 100% of the 'aid' budget did good in the world.
No one objects in principle to emergency and disaster relief etc. But the database of government's generosity, reveals things like the taxpayer giving £Millions to the WWF and WRI, which are already well-funded by billionaires, to leverage that funding in lobbying governments.
The "environment" is the organising principle of the transfer of power from national governments to global political institutions, embedding it above democracy.
We climate sceptics are often accused of being 'oil industry funded denialists'. It isn't true.
In fact, the people who began this process of using the 'environment' as a pretext for transferring power away from people were oil tycoons like the Rockefellers and Maurice Strong.
Another journalism failure by green Graun hack, @fionaharvey. The Construction Leadership Council, which produced these claims, is just an office of BEIS.
This is just propaganda for the #NetZero agenda, and the Gaun reproduces it without question.
In the opening paragraph, rather than telling the truth: that the Construction Leadership Council is just BEIS, she refers to them instead as "the construction industry", as though it spoke for every builder, not for a government department.
BEIS believe that the government spending £5.3bn will create 100,000 direct jobs (we've heard that before) and fix 855,000 homes.
That's £6,198 per home, or £53,000 per job (or (£13,250 per year per job).
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.
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.
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.