Cowardly Jenny Jones does not care for debate about the origins and philosophy and MO of her political tendency.
Greens don't do debate. There is no culture of debate in environmentalism. It expects only obedience.
Bizarre Jennie Jones doesn't mind her coreligionists depriving you of your freedom of movement, and the means by which millions make a living, but she is bothered by robust, free, open, democratic debate.
In the green view, debate is 'abuse' and having a different opinion is 'lies'.
Greens are people who didn't hear the word 'no' until it was far, far, far too late for them to understand what it means.
It is a developmental disorder.
I am serious.
Leaving aside the democratic problems of the HoL, she is not equipped to be in a position of responsibility.
She has no answer to challenges to her position. She doesn't think it needs to be debated. She doesn't think there can be a valid criticism of her ideas.
Jones thinks that blocking traffic is a 'democratic right to protest'.
The right to protest may well include routes that require closure to traffic in order to accommodate a march.
But it doesn't include blocking traffic as "protest".
The right to travel is democracy, too.
Simply not equipped for debate...
The fact and the problem for Jenny Jones and XR is that *vastly* more people want to use the roads than adhere to their extreme ideology.
If anyone disagrees, or dares to point out the fact, Jones' only answer is to screech "BIGOT!" at them.
For example, this is her answer to the point that blocking the roads obstructs access to one of London's most important hospitals.
It doesn't matter what the protesters let through, it's the traffic jam that obstructs.
Jones believes it is her 'democratic right' to kill people.
XR and the Green Party have made their case. Nobody in the country has not heard it. But after hearing it, very few people are moved by it sufficiently to vote for her party or to abandon the things that are necessary for their day-to-day lives.
Let's have a vote on it.
Greens are manifestly insane, unhinged, not capable of reason.
Dale Vince claims that "environmental protesting is an act of conscience". But he does not believe in freedom of conscience. He argues that "climate denial should become a criminal offence".
Vince is also trying to use his £millions in libel action against his critics -- Richard Tice, Sean Bailey, and Paul Staines -- who reproduced his moral relativism about "terrorism" in his own words, and to force the Internet blocking of web sites.
He compares the average tariffs for various criminal offenses. But he does not compare the harms caused by those offences, either in economic terms, or deeper emotional and actual injuries caused to people by attempts to immobilise the road network. Those criminal actions were in very substantial part enabled by Vince himself, who admits that he gave the perpetrators "more than £340,000" to enable the expression of their "act of conscience". Who is to say that they are not motivated by money? On whose behalf, and in whose interests did they act? In many parts of the world, Vince would have been in the dock with the protesters for his part in their joint enterprise.
Nobody is against expressions of conscience. But JSO manifestly intended to cause far more chaos than they in fact achieved.
Disrupting the transport network to the extent that Hallam and his co-defendants intended is not the expression of "conscience". They intended to cause material harm to millions of people. They got off lightly.
They claim that they want to help save the lives of millions or even billions of people. But if you point out that JSO's actions, and the policies they demand -- and will continue to demand until they get their way, unless they are stopped -- are more harmful than climate change and its effects, then, Vince argues, you should face prison. And he uses his fortune to lobby for those policies, to fund those violent activists and their legal expenses, to prevent justice and to prevent transparent, democratic and scientific debate.
JSO do not have a rational view of the world. Their claims are not even mainstream "consensus" science. They are radical outliers, further from the consensus even than "deniers". That is why they, and their bleak ideology must be confronted.
"If you look round the world right now, there are countries in a race for who is going to provide the jobs of the future. And we know, whether it's hydrogen, whether it's solar, whether it's wind, whether it's floating offshore wind, all these new green energies are going to provide jobs for the countries that get this right."
There is no such race. There is hands-down only one player in the market and its "green" industrial sector exists only because of policies created in the west, mainly in Europe, which have created a market for it, and which is supported by a conventional industrial sector, powered by coal, oil and gas, and cheap electricity from those sources.
Britain has no general capacity to engage in such a competition. The sole effect of EU and policies of Labour, coalition and Conservative governments, and now, has been to push prices up, hastening Britain's and Europe's deindustrialisation, and loss of competitiveness. Those governments believed that you could win a "race" by first cutting off you own legs.
@LabourSJ does not know what she is talking about and it is a pity she was not challenged.
Here is the data.
The claims made by MPs owes nothing whatsoever to reality.
So either they do not understand the policies they are creating, or they are lying. Perhaps both.
But the hard fact of the matter is that green ideology, which of course underpins green policy, is an ideology of austerity and deindustrialisation. It requires them both.
Greens want the radical transformation of society & the total reorganisation of the economy, requiring the regulation of lifestyle, dismantling of democratic politics, deindustrialisation & degrowth...
But they think that people who disagree with them are driven by ideology.
Greens think that people who disagree with them should not be allowed on campuses, should not be free to publish or broadcast, should not be able to take part in politics...
Because they believe people who disagree with greens are the ones driven by extreme ideology.
Ideology is one hell of a powerful drug.
But it's not people who fail to worship Gaia who are its actual victims.
You don't see climate sceptics vandalising cultural artefacts.
The RCP's "green physician toolkit" is precisely the same patronising nonsense as the WHO's toolkit of the same name, discussed here a few months ago...
The two main ideas behind the toolkit are A) that doctors routinely make "unnecessary" decisions that have environmental impact, and that B) they should use their authority to advance an ideological agenda.
Currently, Britain's average electricity demand, not including peak demand, is equivalent to the average output of a wind farm with a footprint of 20,538KM^2.
But that is before we consider the electrification of everything -- transport, heating, and so on.
And then we need to store a vast amount of power, perhaps using hydrogen, for when there is no wind and no sunshine.
Misleading... "1.5GW of clean power" is only capacity. The capacity factor of solar PV in the UK is approximately 10%. So these installations that will occupy a vast area have a net capacity of 150MW. They will produce power at lunchtime, and mostly in the summer.
So whereas, for example, the new Hinkley Point C nuclear power station has a physical footprint of about 1 square km, to produce the same average output, a solar farm would need to have a footprint of 268 times larger.
And you'd still need backup for evening, night & winter.
That's a solar farm on a square area of land, 10 miles on each side, producing expensive energy, on land that is charging immense rents, not on demand, which needs matched capacity, displacing agriculture, amenity or wildlife.