It is my belief, that in a very devious way, governments have been making climate action, deliberately unpopular, with policy that puts taxes and tariffs on ordinary people, to pay for climate action. This makes no sense, and just makes climate action unpopular. 1/🧵
I wasn't implying you were blaming the public. Rather I was saying that I believe, that government policy has been deliberately dishonest, in an attempt to blame the public, by making their climate policy, deliberately unpopular. The obvious place to put the taxes/tariffs, are on the top 1%.
It creates an opening for the populist right to claim climate action is just a scam to get people to pay more taxes. Why would governments chose such policy? It's irrational in terms of efficacy, After all, it is the top 1% who produce outsized emissions. theguardian.com 2/
www.theguardian.com
Then there are the fossil fuel companies, making massive profits from creating emissions and driving the climate crisis. Therefore, it stands to reason, that just climate policy, would put the tax burden for paying for climate action, on those with the biggest emissions, and profiting from ACC. 3/ But for reasons, completely unexplained, governments decide to put the burden for paying for Net Zero policy onto the general public, who has the least to do with driving the climate crisis. However, such policy, is a gift for the fossil fuel industry, sponsored populist right. 4/ It also makes climate policy unpopular with the public, and I say this is no accident. I would say, that if the fossil fuel industry wanted to create a strategy to make climate action unpopular, and make the populist right popular, it would be the policy governments have "chosen". 5/ I put the emphasis on chosen, because we all know how governments are in the palms of fossil fuel industry lobbyists, giving the huge tax breaks and state sponsored protection. So it is not a big step to suggest, they influenced this idiotic self-defeating strategy. 6/ Did it never occur to governments, that putting the tax burden for paying for climate action, onto the very rich, with the biggest personal emissions, and the FF companies driving climate change, would be far more just and popular. I suggest, that's why they didn't chose this route. 7/ It has been plainly obvious that for a very long time, that governments having been rowing back on their willingness/commitment to addressing the climate crisis, and therefore it would be most advantageous to them, to turn the public against climate action, by making it unpopular. 8/ Of course, I will be accused of conspiracy theory, and where is the evidence. But the Epstein class are right into dirty dealing, like appointing Epstein's best mate to be the UK Ambassador to the US and the current unpopular UK PM had to resign over this. 9/ The UK PM Keir Starmer was reliably reported to have screamed "I hate tree huggers" after attending a presentation on climate change, and has overseen draconian, authoritarian action against peaceful climate activists. independent.co.uk 10/
www.independent.co.uk
In other words, given their propensity for rowing back on climate action, neoliberal politicians have got every motivation to want to make climate action unpopular, because when they water down climate action, which they keep doing, they don't want the public up in arms about it. 11/ This is why it is far more than a conspiracy theory, when the neoliberal politicians in power for decades, have got such a strong motivation to make climate policy unpopular. Are constantly being lobbied by the fossil fuel industry who seem to write their policy. 12/ @zackpolanski.bsky.social @georgemonbiot.bsky.social @nataliegreenpeer.bsky.social @fisherdanar.bsky.social @sagaoptics.bsky.social @svantethunberg.bsky.social @xrglobal.bsky.social @greenjennyjones.bsky.social @robinboardman.com