If you want to attack the #EUGreenDeal and #Fitfor55, focus on the cost and leave out the benefits. Even better: only look at investment costs and leave out annual (fossil fuel) cost savings too. We can see this recipe being applied in many places now.
Then: all of a sudden, care a lot about poor people, and frame them as the victims, even though #Fitfor55 has specific proposals to prevent that. By some mental gymnastics, pretend that said poor people have SUVs and travel by plane.
And of course, nurture the myth of the EC as a huge bureaucracy (in reality, it's one of the leanest civil services around), and suggest it can force the package on us (while in real life this has to be approved both by a parliament we chose and by our national governments).
If you really need to mention climate change in your attack piece, do it once, in a neutral way. Do not call the climate crisis a crisis, and avoid making a link to the current climate disasters around us.
For illustrations with your piece, pick something that looks bureaucratic and/or dreary. Avoid positive images e.g. people in a city given back to pedestrians and cyclists, more room for nature, comfortable homes, new world-leading solution industries etc.
For quotes to support your article there's a wealth of politicians singing the same song; just pick a few. You might add an NGO saying the plan is unfair and doesn't go far enough; it'll show your balanced approach!
No need to ask anyone for their alternative plans, of course.
No need to ask anyone for their alternative plans, of course.
Oh, and if for some reason, you'd want to write a sensible piece about #Fitfor55: invert the recipe, and add in some content. You might actually want to read a summary of the proposals, and ask some people who've thought about these matters.
In that case, you could start with my short summary in this thread:
https://twitter.com/Sustainable2050/status/1415301257812717572?s=19
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
