UK

ACF hires alarmist MCCCRH to sledge Cricket Australia for inaction on climate change

A Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub (MCCCRH) study commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), urged Cricket Australia (CA) to use its popularity to push for greater climate action and do more to look after player and spectator welfare. Hardly an impartial voice to undertake a study when MCCCRH states that it “conducts social research and leads impact focused projects to build media and policy infrastructure that adequately addresses climate change in Australia.”

The ACF campaign director, Paul Sinclair, said, “Cricket Australia should stop being silent and being a spectator on climate change. It should get in the game and be a climate champion for action to cut pollution from coal and to get onto clean energy.

Can the ACF tell FNF Media how many fans think about climate change as they head out to watch a game? It would seem by the sheer length of the beer snakes produced in Bay 13 at ‘The G’ that fans know how to keep well hydrated during play.

Perhaps the ACF should encourage CA to admonish the likes of Steve Smith who carries 10 cricket bats in his kit. Surely allowing New Balance to fell so many willow trees to enable Smith to indulge such a privilege is in direct violation of the UN Sports and Climate Action Initiative (UNSCAI) to reduce the carbon footprint in sports. Note CA has not signed up to this UN compact.

Perhaps ACF should request the air travel intensive Big Bash League (BBL) be banned to save the planet?

Perhaps Kookaburra needs to stop using leather in cricket balls? What do we make the stumps from? Plastic, aluminum? No good. Bamboo?

The ACF couldn’t resist a sledge at CA for having fossil fuel company, Alinta Energy, as a prime sponsor. ACF gave CA stick for having Marsh & Lloyds as commercial partners given they have plans to insure the proposed Adani coal mine. Why hasn’t the ACF slammed Rugby Australia for having Qantas and Land Rover as sponsors for the Wallabies?

In addition to its failings for not signing up to UNSCAI, CA was also criticized for declining to answer with respect to supporting Australia to be a net zero GHG polluter by 2050. It also failed to answer whether it supported turning Australia 100% renewable or whether CA had plans to transition to 100% renewable power itself. CA even copped flak for not recording the number of days abandoned due to extreme heat. Probably because the number is so minuscule, if any that no such records need keeping.

Which begs the question, if the science is so settled, why is it imperative for the ACF to shame CA for non compliance to their religion? We have already seen bodies with absolutely no climate scientific pedigree sign up and make public statements about the dangers of inaction on climate change. Based on what exactly? Is this how consensus is formed? Through group think based shaming which is disproven by the data?

The Australian Medical Association (AMA). It has little professional clue about the climate yet it pushes the narrative even though the far bigger worry should be the percentage of doctors abandoning the organization in droves because of the stance. Our Reserve Bank as well as regulators APRA and ASIC are on board pontificating about global warming, despite corporate Australia, by their own studies, showing less commitment. Such is the trend against climate alarmism by listed corporations, it seems regulators feel the need to dial up legislation to force adoption so it can get more funding to play Big Brother.

The ACF’s true colors come out in the pull quote on p. 18,

It is conceivable that directors who fail to consider the impacts of climate change risk for their business, now, could be found liable for breaching their statutory duty of due diligence going forwards.”

There you have it folks. Lobby for a change in the Australian Corporations Act. Let’s make sure that CA directors can be hauled over coals (no pun intended) for not using a carbon neutral yacht to transport players to the next Ashes series in the UK.

Don’t laugh, the International Olympic Committee and UN argue that, “Sport is not just a victim of climate change; it is also a contributor, through greenhouse gas emissions.

C’mon CA! Ban all merchandise. Tell off KFC for giving fans paper buckets to put on their heads every game. Think of all that virgin pulp that will end up in landfill. No more interstate or international games unless players can be carbon neutral. No more day/night matches unless the light towers are 100% renewable. Players can only have two bats to share between them.

In closing we should cast great doubt over Monash University’s ability to be impartial. The institution’s alarmist climate credentials are well documented.

Recall Monash University made up c.20% of the academics who signed an open letter in support of the lunatics of the Extinction Rebellion. We showed that most of those academics came from fields such as stand up comedy, poetry, arts/education, sports management, archaeology, LatAm studies, sex, health and society, social services, veterinary biology, culture, gender and racism. Few from actual climate science fields. We even proved that Matthew Flinders, who died in 1814, was a signatory to the same open letter, proving once again that alarmists are very poor at policing things that damage credibility. It is all about the number that sign, regardless of background.

Hopefully CA has a jolly good laugh and tells the ACF that it will happily comply as long as the ACF guarantees to offset any lost predicted revenues due to the ACF’s dud prophecies. Perhaps CA should simply ask the ACF why the IPCC admits within its own research (not the summaries written by politicians that hypes the panic and fear mongering) that 98% of the models it uses grossly overestimate warming.

An open letter to Peter Fitzsimons

SMH.png

Dear Peter,

It wasn’t so long ago that Fact Not Fiction Media penned an open letter to your lovely wife Lisa after she suggested to newly elected PM Scott Morrison – the man who won the unwinnable election – that he should pick up the phone to NZ PM Jacinda Ardern if he was ever in doubt about policy positions.

Never mind the election results that showed, not only how he managed to ‘unite’ the LNP after the wilderness of the Turnbull Coalition, but his ability to read the pulse of the voters, especially in Queensland. The rest is history.

Never mind the realities that 570,000 Kiwis (11% of their population) choose to live here vs 39,000 Aussies who live there. Can anyone point to the tidal wave of New Zealanders returning to their homeland to embrace the policies pushed by the high priestess of woke? Thought not. Quelle surprise that Australia already outranked her Wellness Budget even before her superior social media skills caused the press to lavish endless praise without lifting a finger to provide context.

So it is with little surprise to read your dig at the British and Tony Abbott after the resounding landslide won by Boris Johnson this week. We get that you don’t like the former Member for Warringah.

Your remark about “Little Britain” is utterly baseless. Did you see sterling rally on the result? Did you see the positive reaction of UK stocks on the FTSE? Financial markets, as you know, echo economic confidence. Not quite sure what bigger endorsement Boris Johnson could have got?

If you let your olfactory senses go wild at the Avenue Rd Cafe over the aroma of the election, it seems way more Brits side with Mr Abbott by that metric. Plenty of Aussies, including me, relish Brexit as a massive opportunity. We’ll get to that. First things first.

Even if we were to indulge your ‘Little Britain’ theory a little further, which part of not being a part of the EU, which presumably is the basis of your negative comment, will the Poms or Aussies miss out on? What adverse externalities would ensue for Australia?

Australia ends up being a winner from Brexit. We already do as much with the UK in bilateral trade than Germany & France combined. Bilateral trade with the UK is 1/3rd that of the Eurozone based on a population 1/8th the size. A strong UK economy is much better for Aussie businesses per capita. They understand this.

Should Aussies celebrate the fact that poverty levels in the EU have ballooned by a further 30m people since 2006? That is right, c.109.2m people (21.7% of the total EU population) live below the poverty line according to Eurostat. No, it is not due to the entry of so many new EU members, many which joined in 2004. Poverty has been a consequence of grossly incompetent centralised control out of Brussels. Yet where is the media on this? Deathly silent.

Eurozone growth has crawled to a trickle. Pent up uncertainty in the UK will now dissipate as the clear majority won by BoJo will allow the free hand of capitalism to turn the financial spigots on. President Trump will have no hesitation in putting an FTA together. A deal with an economy comprising 25% of world GDP is no bad thing. I’m sure ScoMo will oblige 10 Downing St too. Japan will be lining up to make sure Mitsukoshi can stock Fortnum & Mason teas in Ginza. All will be spiffing. Aussies benefit from a stronger UK. Little Britain?

Maybe Brits felt uneasy signing over more sovereign rights to unelected bureaucrats like former EC President Jean-Claude Juncker who was often found stumbling around drunk? Maybe they saw Juncker threatening to cut off voting rights to the Austrians if they democratically voted in a right-wing eurosceptic president was a tad totalitarian? Did you see that 18,500 Austrians signed a petition to tell the EU to respect their nation-state democracy? Therein lies the point. The EU is all for nation-state democracy as long as it aligns with Brussels. Anything else sees reprisals. A mouth-watering prospect no doubt.

Perhaps we might question why Switzerland voted 126-46 to tear up a 24yr standing invite to join the EU? Lukas Reimann of the Swiss People’s Party, who proposed the bill said:

“It is hardly surprising that the EU looks like an ever less attractive club to join. What, after all, is the appeal of joining a club into which the entire world can apparently move?”

Maybe the British saw through the recent EUP announcement of a ‘climate emergency‘ ahead of the COP25 summit? How much faith can the British have when EU MEPs rejected the following amendment of that legislation by 563 votes to 59:

that climate change is one of the many challenges facing humanity and that all states and stakeholders worldwide must do their utmost to measure it scientifically so that policy, and especially spending is based on observable facts and not on apocalyptic fearmongering or unreliable models; emphasises that there is no scientific consensus on what percentage of climate change is anthropogenic and what percentage is natural

Surely this is not a big ask to demand that any decisions are based on fact, not fiction. Yet the EU is no stranger to ludicrous policies.

Who could forget when the EU legislated to heavily fine companies and hand out jail sentences to bottled water companies that claimed their products rehydrate after a 3-yr study? It is probably this type of brainless stupidity that was a swing factor in encouraging Brits to want to jettison from such insanity. All self-inflicted wounds at the hands of the EU, certainly not because British voters somehow lack intelligence.

Could it be that the EU left the UK, not the other way around? Is it possible that the British were plain fed up with the prospect of having even more EU oversight? The idea that the EU thinks that fixing the problems of the EU are best served by having ever more EU regulations.

If Brexit proved anything, it was the idea that the EU has to reform. Unfortunately, the EU seems willfully blind to look in the mirror and admit that is indeed the problem. Now the UK has a strong mandate to leave, the power of populism will only be emboldened among other member states. The more successful Britain shows itself outside the bloc, the more other countries can have the confidence to leave this utter joke of an institution, a close second only to the buffoonery at the UN.

In closing, there is a touch of irony to know that the media beat-up of Trump’s endorsement of BoJo caused a landslide while Obama’s blessing of ‘remain’ ahead of the referendum caused a resounding defeat. We shouldn’t forget that every candidate poor old celebrity Hugh Grant endorsed lost their seats.

Probably because the average Joe and Joanne are the ones living in the real world.

Perhaps your title should have been, “who wants to cling onto the EU?

All the best,

Mike Newman

DiNatale has a go at democracy

FNFM does not know where to start. What part of overwhelming victory doesn’t Greens Senator Richard DiNatale get? Such rhetoric by the left didn’t work ahead of the election. Stands to reason the result speaks for itself afterwards.

Perhaps DiNatale might wish to relive an interview former England & Wales Greens leader Baroness Bennett had with Nick Ferrari at LBC during the 2015 election campaign as to why the British voting public ignored the Greens in 2019.

Comrade Corbyn, the next British PM?

Something has been burning in the back of CM’s mind as the UK election looms this week. While polls point to the Tories winning, Corbyn is likely to do way better than what the pundits predict. Could he end up as PM? It is not an impossibility. In fact, the odds are increasingly in his favour. CM thinks Corbyn might actually do it.

While it is true that 1.3mn more people voted to leave in the largest ever democratic process in UK history, almost 13mn people didn’t vote on the basis they probably assumed it was a foregone conclusion. CM fundamentally believes that referendum results should have been respected regardless. Not showing up to vote is no excuse. None-the-less we now have a ‘youthquake’ who are desperate to overturn the referendum result to consider.

Of the 18.6mn that couldn’t vote in the referendum in 2016, official figures suggest that 3.85 million registered to vote between the day the election was called on Oct. 29 and Tuesday’s registration deadline — two-thirds of them under the age of 35. The youth seem far more preoccupied with socialism than their parents. While it is safe to assume that not all of the 13mn that didn’t vote were remainers, the youth could well be a decisive factor.

CM detests pretty much every policy that Corbyn espouses as it would be a total disaster for Britain in terms of future investment and immediate capital flight. Yet young kids being offered free everything lack the lived experiences of pre-Thatcher socialism and the economic calamity that ensued. They are utterly clueless in this respect. Yet Corbyn sings all of the woke causes of climate change, social justice and equal outcomes. They are on his side.

How well do millennials know their tyrants? A CIS study in Australia showed that 58% of millennials had a favourable view of socialism. Unfortunately, 51% did not know who Chairman Mao was. Another 32% did not know Stalin and 42% hadn’t heard of Lenin. If we combine with “know but not familiar” with “don’t know” we see almost 80%, 66% and 74% respectively. Oh how wonderful to learn in school about three men whose social policies led to the deaths of 10s of millions. With Marxist teachers rife throughout academia, Corbyn will have a plentiful stock of willing comrades in his back pocket.

Still, as much as the press smears the socialist opposition leader, UK PM Boris Johnson has been the man who has been looking to avoid confrontation at all costs. Surely if BoJo possessed a winning hand and held a superior manifesto, why wouldn’t he show up on the popular BBC programme hosted by Andrew Neil to state his case? It is a terrible look. Neil eviscerated Johnson without the PM being there to defend himself. Worse for BoJo is that his video went viral. What have you got to hide PM?

Corbyn could well snatch victory.  If the Tories take the attitude of former PM Theresa May’s snap election in June 2017 they should beware the barking electorate. Don’t forget how well Corbyn did in that fight.

CM stated in May 2017 the following,

“The first thought to come across CM’s head when Theresa May called this [June] election was, “bad idea.” This hubris she’d romp home may prove yet again how out of touch many politicians are with their constituents and how one must never believe in polls. I think she scrapes home but for now, wants the nightmare over.”

History revealed she scraped home with the help of the DUP. The EU has masterfully engineered delay after delay to keep the ‘remain’ dream alive. Now the youth have gathered steam as registered voters, they could well hand the EU a gift that will keep its Ponzi scheme alive.

When will politicians realise that being less worse no longer cuts it with the electorate? They are sick of the self-interest of the political class. They want to blow it up. Johnson has not looked good and the Brexit Party, which might have smashed the European elections, looks as though it does not have the traction it had hoped for. It could underwhelm.

Many of the Labour MPs may have ignored their elderly constituents but it would be a safe bet to say that the ultimate outcome in these so-called “betrayed” constituencies is anything but a doe deal to shun them.

Polls are damned near useless now. They failed to predict Trump. Failed to pick Brexit. Why put faith that the UK pollsters are any closer to the mark?

Politics is a random walk. Trudeau managed to cling on to power in Canada despite being found guilty of two breaches of conflicts of interest, blackface, cultural appropriation and many other gaffes. Clearly, it didn’t matter enough, just as “p*ssy grabbing” didn’t impact Trump in 2016.

Therefore CM expects a much higher chance of a Corbyn PM-ship or at the very least a parliament that puts us straight back where we were before the election – a hung parliament with no rudder and a Brexit that is watered down in such a way that it achieves nothing in the way of that originally intended.

CM sincerely hopes he is wrong on Corbyn. He would be an economic disaster at a time the Tories would have left a troubling fiscal legacy that is nothing to write home about.

If Corbyn wins, the UK will face severe capital flight. The pound will tank. A second referendum will be put forward. The outcomes will be dire. This is not being hysteric in any way. The markets are simply not pricing it in at all.

At least Sir James Dyson of vacuum cleaner fame saw the light. He is a Brexiteer but his lack of faith in the process has already seen him relocate the HQ to Singapore. Many more would follow. After all, if Corbyn wants to control the behaviour of British business on the FTSE and nationalise utilities it will hardly be a fertile ground to invest.

EU climate emergency vote is way worse than you think

What took the group thinking EU so long? What better way to justify more taxation and wealth redistribution than to declare a “climate emergency”? What you are about to read is a perfect explanation of how little credibility exists in the European Parliament (EuroParl).

In black and white, EuroParl noted,

EU countries should at least double their contributions to the international Green Climate Fund, Parliament says. EU member states are the largest providers of public climate finance and the EU’s budget should fully comply with its international commitments. They also note that pledges by developed countries do not meet the collective goal of 100 billion USD per year as of 2020…Finally, they urgently call on all EU countries to phase out all direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies by 2020.

Now, this is where it gets curious. Take a look at this file (from page 8) and ask yourself, how many amendments to resolutions within the “climate emergency” conversation were rejected supporting the overall declaration passing 429 in favour, 215 against, 19 abstaining?

Here is one amendment that was rejected 95, 563, 9 by MEPs (you can’t make this stuff up),

Recalls that climate change is one of the many challenges facing humanity and that
all states and stakeholders worldwide must do their utmost to measure it
scientifically so that policy, and especially spending, is based on observable facts and not on apocalyptic fearmongering or unreliable models; emphasises that there is
no scientific consensus on what percentage of climate change is anthropogenic and
what percentage is natural

Seems fair enough! Basing decisions affecting 550 million constituents on real hard data is the right thing to do, no? Clearly not. Shut up and follow the religious cult and demand followers cough up twice as much into the collections pot. The lobbyists must be well pleased.

Or,

“Text as a whole without the words: ‘urgently’, ‘and implement’ and ‘to net-zero
emissions by 2050″ defeated 101, 555, 15.

Isn’t it striking that the majority of MEPs won’t even consciously vote in favour of making sure funds are spent appropriately? Nope, bow down and shut up. Otherwise face being cut off as we get to observe from the EuroParl documents below.

This is what an MEP from Northern Ireland, Claire Fox, had to say,

Madam President, I voted against the climate and environmental emergency motion because I’m really concerned at the hyped-up anti-science scaremongering that’s terrifying young people, telling them that billions will die, that there’ll be a collapse of civilisation, a lot of the rhetoric coming out of Extinction Rebellion and echoed in the debate over the last few days. I think that the fact that we voted against an amendment today that said that we should be committed to bringing the environmental subject back to rational discussion, and we rejected it, admits that actually, we’re having an irrational discussion. This becomes advocacy and propaganda, rather than science. There’s no scientific evidence from the IPCC or anyone else about the extinction of humanity, and we should be very careful about claiming that anthropological climate changes cause floods and droughts, which we have been doing quite casually during the last few days. In fact, the IPCC says that such issues are probably caused by socio-economic conditions, and we forget socio-economic conditions too much and demand, in fact, as this Parliament has done, decarbonisation, which will lead to eco-austerity, massive price hikes in energy, and ordinary working people paying the cost for scaremongering and...

(The President cut off the speaker)

or another Northern Irish MEP Robert Rowland,

Madam President, I’d just like to reiterate what my colleague said. I also rejected the COP24 resolution. I may not be an Economics Professor, but I do profess to understand economics. They also call it the dismal science, but when it comes to the climate emergency, I would describe the apocalyptic forecasts as nothing but science fiction. The adoption of these policies today, and the aim of carbon neutrality by 2050 is nothing short of reckless and the most extreme example of economic illiteracy I’ve ever seen. The fact that amendments were rejected demanding a full impact assessment shows rank indifference to the cost and practicality of aggressive climate policies.

One thing I can say for certain is that the impact of net-zero makes the consequence of any form of Brexit look puny by comparison. Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy and Economics at Oxford University, was right when he said: ‘We should be honest that it is a huge industrial undertaking, and it will have significant cost. These are enormous industrial activities, there is nothing in history that looks like this outside of wartime.

In my own country, our own Chancellor has put that cost at over one trillion pounds, or almost 2% of GDP per annum. It is an insane policy.

If the EU truly wishes to make itself even less competitive, in the face of some of the world’s highest electricity prices, they are only self-flagellating in an already flailing economy which continues to slow to 5-year lows. If the EU truly looked at its record since 2007, it would see its policies have delivered 40 million more people into poverty, a number which totals 118 million people, or 23% of the EU population!

If there was ever a bigger load of intellectual dishonesty posted by the EU it would be this. It states that,

Climate emergency declarations in 1,195 jurisdictions and local governments cover 545 million citizens with 53 million of those living in the United Kingdom. This means in Britain now roughly 80 per cent of the population lives in areas that have declared a climate emergency.

The irony if such a statement is that there is no way in the world that 545 million citizens are in agreement within those 1,195 jurisdictions. 53mn Brits? Seriously? In Australia’s case, many declaring climate emergencies have been local green-left councils who have made idle gestures without backing it up with realities. Constituents have not been asked. Windfarm plans for Warringah are not on the agenda.

The greatest irony with the EU is that they classify biomass (which is more polluting than coal) as a renewable and gives it a zero-carbon emission weighting provided a tree is planted per tree burnt. Sadly trees take 40 years to fully grow to be able to offset that produced. However, we will discover that the fine print taketh away the wonderful headlines.

Will the Poles ditch their coal industry to comply or face savage reprisals from Brussels? Will the EU guarantee Poland gets huge subsidies to pay for its termination? Which country would be so blind as to put their livelihoods into the hands of the EU!? The Greeks might have a view as do the Brits.

This action will spectacularly blow up.

By all means ride the short term wave of renewables stocks but be sure to line up all of those nasty fossil fuel companies into the portfolio that get pummeled by financial markets because the type of economic disaster that will beset the EU will only create the conditions where the peons will revolt and force a return to the way things were. Efficient, cheap and reliable forms of energy that will make a proper dent in the poverty line rather than promises and handouts.

The EU needs to learn the lesson that “Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient to become independent of it.” It won’t be long before the youth of today get to embrace their love for socialism. Experience is a hard teacher. They’ll get the test first and the lesson afterwards.

Climate colonialism is a thing?!?

Now there is supposed risk of colonialism within the climate protest movement, Extinction Rebellion (XR). Who knew that despite the greatest existential threat to all of civilization that XR is being lambasted for not being diverse enough? The opinion piece written in The Guardian by teenage UK Youth Parliament member for Camden as well as knife crime, Brexit and climate change campaigner, Athian Akec, noted,

No movement can be truly progressive if the voices of ethnic minorities are excluded – and the flashes of ignorance and xenophobia we see from environmentalists are a reflection of this

…The short, frank answer is that the tactics of Extinction Rebellion are designed by and for middle-class, white Britain. Their central rhetoric about a dystopian future fails to cut through for those of us already faced with a nightmarish present, surrounded by poverty and austerity…

Boy does this smack of the radical left eating its own. Even the attempts of white people going out of their way to ruin their futures is sort of like saying “we’d rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich.

How ironic that one of the XR co-leaders, Skeena Rathor, happens to be from a minority background. How hilarious that she hitched a ride in GMB host Piers Morgan’s car to the studio. Such a gesture to her own blatant hypocrisy in efforts to save the planet.

Akec has a point on flashes of ignorance when an XR man,dressed as broccoli, was arrested. Other vegetables and fruits were represented but not all minority fruits. Isn’t that just other forms of fructophobia or lachanophobia?

Akec went on,

Without the involvement of black voices, the climate crisis movement may slip into being a vehicle for climate colonialism: with the resources of the global south increasingly exploited, while western economies are decarbonised. The west may save itself at the cost of others.

Can the West help that much of the raw materials to decarbonize lie in Africa?

CM has long advocated that XR protest in Beijing where the biggest impact on carbon emissions could be felt. But no, XR claim that is a matter for the Chinese, who by the way use their “developing nation” status to get away with murder on emissions via cranking up coal fired capacity all the while they sell western nations the very rope to hang their economies with – Chinese made renewables.

Perhaps Akec should look at the facts of the UN COP climate summits. CM wrote at the last summit the following 12 months ago,

Look at the numbers of delegates from Africa to stake their claim of the wealth redistribution. Guinea has sent the biggest delegation of 406 people. In 2016 the country received over $10.7mn in climate grants. DR Congo’s 237 delegates garnered $45 mn in aid for climate mitigation projects according to the OECD. The Ivory Coast received $114 million in 2016 for environmental aid. Indonesia got $250 million in climate related aid in the same year.  Poland can be forgiven being the host nation to be 3rd place. It receives zip, much like the US and Australia. The COP summits are nothing more than networking events to collect cash from virtue signaling Western governments.

CM added,

One has to question how efficiently these millions given away get to be spent on the intent. Take a look at Transparency International’s global 2017 corruption index. 180 is the worst. 1 is the best. Note the correlation of delegates attending COP24 to those countries with a higher prevalence of corruption.”

DR Congo was ranked 161st in corruption, Guinea 148th and Ivory Coast, 103rd. Yes, the higher the number the worse the prevalence of misappropriation and embezzlement.

Akec’s tender years reveal a naivety in that if the west goes down the path of full decarbonisation it will be the biggest self inflicted injury on economic growth that would put even more pressure on the very countries supposedly suffering from climate change driven poverty. Much less solve his knife crime issue that sneaks into his piece.

Still Akec closes with,

decarbonising the economy isn’t enough – they must show that if they succeed, the green future would be one without zero-hour contracts, homelessness, poverty or knife crime. By framing itself as wanting to radically transform the injustices of capitalism, it might win the support it needs beyond the white middle classes. To tackle this crisis in any meaningful way, it’s crucial activists acknowledge that the groups who are currently underrepresented are perhaps the ones who have the most at stake.”

Ahhh, so it isn’t just about the climate after all. It’s further confirmation of using the XR movement to turn the world into a globalist Marxist state. Just need to get the racial, gender and sexual orientation identities sorted first.

Jeremy Corbyn is your man.