I also have codes for anyone else who wants rid of that man

Me too - let me know if you want codes

Coming back to say I have a sunny day lifeboat if anyone wants one

For Sunak, net zero shift was a way to tell a bigger story: he's ruthlessly realistic & wants to save people money. Could have been about anything (cf HS2).

But climate policy is popular. So Labour might lean into it as a policy issue to hurt the Tories. Hence Starmer today.

No word from the people who last week claimed the polls had narrowed after Sunak's net zero speech (Why on earth would that have moved VI?)

New Zealand Imposes Lifelong Ban On Youth Buying Cigarettes bit.ly/3vwEF6u #WhatDoYouThink ?

'Who cares if Miami is 6m underwater?' once asked a very clever man.

New study: 2m of sea-level rise would put half Florida's coastal counties underwater. Not great for tax revenue, among other things.

Hi #climatetwitter .

Idris is the centerpiece of a story I didn't come to appreciate until a few years ago. If your work helps people deal with climate, her story is a love letter to People Like You. Please let me reshare it today, the 101st anniversary of her birth. 1/n

New post: Why you should be wary of agree/disagree statements bit.ly/2uHEGVW

The premise of Sunak's argument on Kuensberg is that his Net Zero go-slow 'will save people thousands of pounds'

But Citizens Advice says his decisions will RAISE costs for people.
wearecitizensadvice.org.uk/why-delaying-a…

Big debate in London park about these insects living in an underground nest. Honeybees or wasps? Any ideas? alison benjamin Urban Bees Maddie Moate

A wise person once said that you will experience climate change through a series of increasingly wild videos, until you are the one taking the video.

We really shouldn't memory hole that Tufton St collectively pushed *obviously* false numbers about the supposed costs of net zero, then deleted their tweets when called out.

Credit to Simon Evans for putting it on record theguardian.com/environment/20…

Civitas have now deleted this tweet (after everyone's finished for the day; nice try). The news stories based on the report remain undeleted.

Both stories apparently reveal conspiracy to mislead about climate. The difference is: 1) 'whistleblower' story gets coverage, even if extremely implausible; 2) refuting of study doesn't get coverage, even if correct & reveals bad intentions

These are bad incentives!

Seems that, if one guy claims, with no evidence, that climate science is biased, major news outlets take him seriously.

But if an organised & influential group are caught making up nonsense about costs of climate policy, the outlets don't ask if there's an opposite problem.

When someone claims that a policy announcement - esp about a future plan people aren't feeling yet - has shifted vote intent, they're probably wrong

This is the biggest whopper I've ever seen in a think tank report. Embarrassing also for The Times and The Sunday Times which has published a column repeating the numbers this morning thetimes.co.uk/article/yes-we…