It must be a coincidence that relics of feudalism (such as a certain Charles) has a preference for feudal modes of production (for you) and feudal social relations.
But trees! Yay trees! Everybody loves trees!
TREEEEEEEEEEES!!!!!
"Things will stop going wrong when there are more trees."
"If only we can plant zillions more trees, all of our problems will go away."
"Trees will create jobs, grow the economy, reduce crime, and make the weather better."
How?
Of all the problems that the UK has -- never mind that the world has -- how many of them can be solved by trees?
How high up on the political agenda should trees be.
Don't tell me it's not a case of either/or. It is. Resources are limited and policies have consequences.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Byline Times project seems to be an independent news/media project that is entirely and exclusively concerned with projecting anxieties about independent news/media projects -- i.e. the expression of unauthorised opinion.
For Cadwalladr's crew to bleat about unhinged and extreme conspiracy theories, propagated by people who are 'unqualified' to act as reporters, journalists & interviewers is of course a bit rich.
But the interesting thing is that they are too dense to understand it.
My attempt at a sociological explanation is that they are formed from a class of people that thrived -- for no good reason -- under the terms of Blair administration, which lingered long into the coalition era. The referendum was of course the terminal point for that class.
There's an entire chapter on "Libertarians" in the green demonology.
But there is no evidence anywhere that Moniot et al have understood, let alone read an argument from a 'libertarian'.
"Libertarianism" is a position that exists only in the green imagination.
So it's all the more ironic (or moronic) that Monbiot tries to claim that it is libertarianism that is the developmental disorder, not his own failure to develop any ability to negotiate his will against others, or a sense of proportion.
I.e., if you disagree with Monbiot, it's the end of the world.
*Exactly* the same reaction produced when a toddler fails to assert their will on the world.
There is no nuance to the green understanding. It is wholly narcissistic.
But ignorance of this... erm... fact... is rife among those who claim to best represent 'dealing in facts'.
It gets worse than the notion of science being synonymous with 'facts'. Some even confuse science for its object.
Science is neither fact nor noumenon. It's the process by which we attempt to discover facts and to shorten the distance between noumena and explanation.