They don't want you to drive. At all. And they're not going to stop putting inconveniences and costs in your way. They're committed to it, and there's nothing to stop them and no sitting political alternative.
If they can extort money from you in the process, so much better for the local councils and the private equity firms that have bought all the bailiffs that service local authorities. The first thing they come for if you can't afford a fine/penalty charge... is your car.
Their policies might leave you immobile, unable to work, unable to afford basic things.
But your hardship is progress, according to their measurement. Another car off the road.
The world is now a better place.
Anything less than an understanding that it is ideology driving this policymaking is insufficient. It needs to be understood that the ideology aims to transform the relationship between the state and individuals, such that national & local government decide your lifestyle.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
No doubt politics was hollowed out. But by being 'soft'? By people not having to do so much physical labour? By a sense of entitlement? I think the implications are somewhat ugly.
Deindustrialisation is a thing, though. And the political distaste for industry and for that matter, democracy, needs further exploration. I don't think the issue is one of 'culture', because that seems to imply that culture is the business of politics to engineer.
Too many politicians will tell you that 'materialism and self entitlement' is a problem. But that's not what people who face spiralling rents, stagnant wages, rising costs of living etc, will feel. It's only a consumer/ individual culture in the most superficial sense.
Climate science failed to confront alarmism. It indulged and continues to indulge alarmism. And if it didn't ignore them completely, it framed anyone who was critical of alarmism as 'deniers'.
And that's why there are many children who believe they have no future.
The weaponisation of children's emotions for a political project is something that institutional science will ultimately be remembered for, as will its unwillingness to 'engage' with critics of the politicisation of science.
Fearmongering is a way of compensating for loss of confidence in the means to judge truth. It looks like deference to objectivity, but it's an appeal to authority and a demand for obedience from ignorance. The fear is genuine, however, and its object is moral autonomy.
There is no such thing as a 'trusted, legitimate source', because so many institutions that we might once have turned to for such a thing have traded their independence for power.
Trust was the condition of medicine, but it was squandered.
I don't need the 'trusted sources' facts, because they're not trusted, and that is the basis of my decision not to have the vaccine.
I have seen so much bullshit from institutional science and medicine over the last 2 years that I doubt I will ever trust it again.
They are going to get madder and weirder and more and more dangerous until society choses to confront environmentalism, or green ideology causes a deep political, social, and economic crisis.
What do I mean by crisis?
Listen to the protesters. They're demanding not just Net Zero, but actual zero by 2030.
There is no rational perspective being brought to UNFCCC negotiations, and even less to green ideology. It is, so to speak, a positive-feedback mechanism.
This isn't a critique of policy that either understands environmentalism, draws away from its excesses, understands its rise, or proposes a meaningful energy policy. He'd be quite happy with NetZero if it hadn't created an opportunity for him.
Since he calls it 'net stupid'... "Hydrogen" is a stupid idea. As stupid as anything in Net Zero, which indeed it is a part of. SMRs are all well and good, but hardly answer the problem for the next decade or so.
"We will invest in brilliant shiny new world-class super-duper fab technology".