If there is any potential left in the UK, it will be destroyed by the BBB/#NetZero agendas, because there is nothing the government and big UK capital is more determined to do than destroy creativity and independence. It may, however, be turned into a rent-seekers paradise.
A prime (sub-prime) example here.

Rishi and Boris getting pally with the boutique energy company that is going to make a fortune out of rationing.

If Octopus is a 'tech company', I am an Olympic swimmer.

Making apps that ration energy use is not development.

'Invention' that merely takes design briefs from flagship government policy is not R&D, but servicing politics.
The UK government in particular believes 'innovation' (pka R&D) happens because policy mandates it.

One consequence of this is that they funnel large amounts of money to the landlords of 'incubators' -- serviced offices essentially.
Another is that large amounts of money are pumped into organisations that don't really need it, to do things that the government wants... See here for e.g...
ukri.org/opportunity/
An example... £12 million quid for projects that may help the government achieve its policy objective of grid storage -- which should surely exist before policy that requires it was drafted.

Firms & others will take the money, but will have nothing to show for it.
This too, you see is a desperate attempt to close the gap between policy ambition and reality.

Because the policy cart was put before the technology horse.

They could have had the R&D competition -- and feasibility and cost-benefit analyses -- before the policymaking.
Are you a woman? If not, self-define as one and have this £50K pat on the head at the taxpayers' expense.
Could you build an AI-powered robot Greta to help catalyse saving the planet through quantum technologies and digital twinning?

If you can pretend that you understand this gibberish, then the government has a £62K cheque with your name on it.
Stop Skynet becoming a humanity-destroying bastard, and you can win £81K!!!
It's so freakin' weird.

Just switch the AI off if it's such a problem.
The environmental sciences are dominated by racists, misogynists, transphobes and homophobes, that the government has set aside £400K for ideological reprogramming.
You see, this is how it works...

The ideological agenda is embedded in the funding streams.

Nobody is going to get any money for research that shows the UK govt's "economics of biodiversity" agenda is ideological bullshit.

But that *is* what's needed.
It's so desperate. It's kind of sad.
Asking 'researchers' to research 'productivity' is like asking drunks to research sobriety.

What do you think they will spend the money on?
Are you a rubbish artist?

Do an art that will only be seen by people who are already terrified of climate change and the government will give you £30,000 of other people's money.
Did you ever wonder why the BBC was so bereft of ideas?

It's because the ideas community has a direct line into the BBC ideas department.
Anyway, there are pages and pages and pages of these offers of public money for 'researchers' and companies in return for alignment with the government's agenda.

The public doesn't get anything in return for them, other than stupid policies and bloated 'research' organisations.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ben Pile

Ben Pile Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @clim8resistance

6 Aug
Not entirely true. Miners strikes had had plagued Con & Lab governments for a long time. MT asked for a mandate to confront the issue and got it. The strikes, conversely, were not democratic. Meanwhile, global warming had been touted as the basis for nuclear by Sweden in the '70s
Mines were uneconomic. Closures had happened under both party's governments -- more under Labour. And the unions and left were quite happy to use industrial disputes to bring down the MT government, despite the wishes of the voters, and without balloting their own members.
They failed. And the consequence of their own undemocratic position was that they were left unable to negotiate in their members' (and broader communities') interests, and the laws regulating union activity were changed.
Read 10 tweets
5 Aug
The green blob is just about awakening to the fact of the mess it has made for itself -- a mess that has been making for >20 years, as has been pointed out to it throughout...
They are trying to claim that the commitment to #NetZero is equivalent to the commitment to Brexit...

They are trying to claim that sceptics have failed to engage in the discussion...

Read 9 tweets
5 Aug
That's manifestly bullshit though.

The public didn't express a choice on #NetZero, because they have never been offered a choice on #NetZero....
That is because the @GreenAllianceUK worked to secure a cross-party consensus on climate change policy, precisely to stop the public being given a choice.
As is explained here...

Read 8 tweets
4 Aug
Why don't they simply demand legislation to make *everything* carbon neutral and completely free?

That will work, right?

Hey everyone, I've just solved climate change and poverty and inequality!
Where's my @NobelPrize?

Where's my @UN Access All Areas pass?

Where's my Davos invite?
I've just saved the bloody planet, and all I've got is 13 likes?!!

FFS!
Read 4 tweets
4 Aug
Famous for kicking a ball.

I don't begrudge him his wealth or fame for being good at kicking a ball. Nor do I believe that anyone can kick a ball so effectively.

But I've been on both sides of the putative 'debate' since he was a ball-kicker, and I know that he knows nothing.
This is profoundly wrong, you see:

"The scientific evidence is indisputable."

*NO* 'scientific evidence' is 'indisputable'.

To claim that 'the scientific evidence is indisputable' is to deny science.

That is how we know that climate change is bullshit, even if it's real.
It is a rookie -- which is to say deeply and wholly ignorant -- mistake from the outset.

We can know that it is wrong before we even get to the detail of what precisely is supposedly 'indisputable'.

The fact that the 'scientific' claim is unstated is equally problematic.
Read 5 tweets
4 Aug
You can't buy an EV with a range of 200 miles or more for the price that most people pay for cars -- esp. 2nd hand.

And moreover, the range will diminish as the battery deteriorates.

@LukePollard doesn't know what he's talking about.

He is deceiving the public.
This article points out that out-of-the-box, top-of-the-range EVs are only producing 80-90% of their manufacturers' stated range.

buyacar.co.uk/cars/economica…
I will *never* be able to afford one of those cars. And like most people, I rely on the second (or more) hand market. I've never paid more than £2,000 for a car. My current is an '05, which will in all likelihood last me until it is banned.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(