Guest Post: Michael Comeau On Economic Nationalism

https://www.as-garde.ca/AGMM_E/AGMM_E_Contact-Join.html
https://www.strategic-enterprise.ca/
As-Garde Technology Continuum

Perspective – Heart & Soul of Economic Nationalism

This is written for contrast and perspective

The options are simple and direct…
You can be passive, lay down and die…
You can conform as a poor slave in debt with few or no opportunities,
you can even live at the whim of others, with a robot job…
and experience the great beat down, with industrial and economic genocide.

You can pretend nothing is wrong with the economy and industry,
You can try to ignore the reality of stuff and junk “Made somewhere else”, preferring
the overwhelming replacement of Made in Canada, that eliminates real freedom of choice,
You can believe that the government is for the middle class,
You may never read, “The War against the Family” or even believe it,
You can believe that there is no war against Canadian manufacturing,
or the nation state, or even thoughtful economic nationalism,
but you would be wrong, infinitely dead wrong.

You can pretend to be “politically correct” by not talking about what matters the most,
You can pretend to be tolerant, understanding, accepting – as others get the higher ground,
You can make concessions, be neutral, say nothing and experience the consequence,
as your conscience amplifies what you know in your heart and soul,
the status quo is totally unacceptable, yet you remain in a straight-jacket,
tied down with a ball and chain, taxed every way into oblivion and extinction,
afraid to talk, to stand up and be counted, afraid of criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing,
but you are not afraid from the critic within, the great beat down,
the relentless one that annihilates your character and self-esteem, your sense of worth.

You can continue to believe that you are the sum of your mistakes,
or that your value is measured by the money you have or the things you own,
but you would be wrong, deceiving yourself or not knowing any better,
you can stumble in the dark, blind to reality, your true potential,
unaware of the war against your soul, your nation, your country, true values
your community, the industries and enterprise, the war against you – the individual.

You can continue on, in the routine of life, you resist change, passive to challenge,
hypnotized by the genocide death machine of television and microwave technology,
subliminal and in your face distraction, propaganda, misinformation and deception,
endless distractions from sports, movies, immoral and stupid TV, it may never register
you may never experience the greatest adventure of all time, or explore possibilities,
or that you can totally fail in your purpose, or in finding out something about you,
that could transform your consciousness, your reality and much more.

You could be so passive, that reaction, initiative, and pro-active excitement is rare.
While others secure more territory and defraud you of your heritage,
as your world, power base, opportunities and quality of life, are reduced to rubble,
as you stand next to a decimated industrial base and endangered community,
you have completely failed to realized the significance of the symbols,
in the quest of the Holy Grail, the wasteland, the broken sword,
or the characters who could have helped you, you never recognized,
everyday innocence, genius beyond measure, a word in season.

Contrast and points of view are essential, like rain in the desert.
You can guard your views about politics, religion and money,
afraid to offend anyone, but the facts, opinions and beliefs remain,
understand that it is possible to make friends and allies with common understanding,
the points of view, experiences, shared history and much more.
We can live by and promote true values, real family, nation building,
and be a part of the solutions that transform and revive everyday life.

Or how about the quality of life, health, opportunities with challenge and reward
You can stand powerless as industry and manufacturing is wiped out,
and your community and citizens suffer from lack of vision, imagination and co-operation,
or you can freely choose to be in the As-Garde Technology Continuum.

You can be pro-active, live with purpose, energy and enthusiasm,
a creative individual with imagination, opportunities and prosperity,
create an alternate reality, enjoy exciting, challenging and rewarding work and career options,
experience the pure exhilaration, revitalized industry, enterprise and life,
You can be aware of the awesome and exciting industrial renaissance.

You can be part of the Made in Canada and Product of Canada revolution,
in the “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada” economic redevelopment.
the power to create wealth, high quality goods, exciting innovation and invention,
custom made products, advanced technology, awesome performance, made with pride,
good paying, solid quality, family rated jobs and careers, something much more interesting.

You can stand powerful, with solid and secure industry and manufacturing,
your community and citizens thrive and prosper from vision, imagination and co-operation,
people that dare to make a difference.

Stand on guard for Canada, with design engineering Made in Canada!
Live and Build with Heart and Soul Eh !

Media In Canada Obedient To Gov’t Covid Narrative Largely Because Of Subsidies

Justin Trudeau (or his clone), and Theresa Tam take questions from the obedient and largely compliant media. Some highlights from the video include:

[1] No clear answer given about quarantine camps
[2] Journalists asked to be puppets and discredit alternative sources
[3] Social media censored/demonitized, made invisible by algorithm
[4] Information should be checked against official sources — not necessarily for accuracy
[5] Asking people to do testimonials, no specification it be true
[6] Innoculate people “from vaccine misinformation”
[7] Public should only trust official sources

One has to wonder why there is no skepticism whatsoever shown, and why members of the media are toeing the line like this. And there is a simple answer: money.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. Our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

Reminder: 2018 Fall Economic Update To Subsidize Journalism
2019 Budget For Canada

CLICK HERE, for Digital News Subscription Tax Credit.
https://archive.is/4of5V
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for Refundable Labour Tax Credit (25% of salaries)
https://archive.is/SKSh1
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for Canadian Periodical Fund. ($1.5M limit)
https://archive.is/yZP02
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for April 2020 announcement on media subsidies
https://archive.is/53cVu
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for Special Measures For Journalism (Covid)
https://archive.is/4JeLG
WayBack Machine Archive

3. Reminder Of $595M Media Grant In Nov 2018

Support for Canadian Journalism
A strong and independent news media is crucial to a well-functioning democracy. It empowers citizens by providing them with the information they need to make informed decisions on important issues, and also serves to hold powerful institutions—including governments—to account by bringing to light information that might not otherwise be made available to the public. In short, strong and independent journalism serves the public good—for Canada, and for Canadians. Canadians have a right to a wide range of independent news sources that they can trust, and government has a responsibility to ensure that Canadians have access to these kinds of news sources.

A New Non-Refundable Tax Credit for Subscriptions to Canadian Digital News Media
.
To support Canadian digital news media organizations in achieving a more financially sustainable business model,
the Government intends to introduce a new temporary, non-refundable 15-per-cent tax credit for qualifying subscribers of eligible digital news media.
.
In total, the proposed access to tax incentives for charitable giving, refundable tax credit for labour costs and non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions will cost the federal government an estimated $595 million over the next five years. Additional details on these measures will be provided in Budget 2019.

It was 2 years ago that this media subsidization was covered on this site. See page 40 in the report. The goal was to keep otherwise unprofitable media afloat usin taxpayer money in order to hold the Government to account, and to promote diverse ideas.

Now, if holding the Government to account, and promoting viewpoint diversity were the results, then it “may” be worthwhile. But as we will see, that’s not the goal at all.

4. 2019 Budget Includes These Measures

Supporting Canadian Journalism
A strong and independent news media is crucial to a well-functioning democracy. Recognizing the vitally important role the media play in helping citizens make informed decisions about important issues, in the 2018 Fall Economic Statement the Government announced its intention to introduce three new tax measures to support Canadian journalism:
• A new refundable tax credit for journalism organizations.
• A new non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions to Canadian digital news.
• Access to charitable tax incentives for not-for-profit journalism.
As previously announced, the Government will establish an independent panel of experts from the Canadian journalism sector to assist the Government in implementing these measures, including recommending eligibility criteria. Given the importance of ensuring that media outlets are able to operate with full independence, the Government proposes to establish an independent administrative body that will be responsible for recognizing journalism organizations as being eligible for any of the three measures.
Further details are available in Tax Measures: Supplementary Information.

That’s from page 173 of the 2019 budget. The goal is to provide: (a) tax credits for organizations; (b) tax credits for subscribers; and (c) further tax incentives for NFP journalism. More details are listed on page 373.

Of course, there will be an “independent panel” deciding on who gets this money. It can’t be too independent, since real journalists call out the lies and fabrications of governments.

5. Digital News Subscription Tax Credit

Qualifying subscription expense
A qualifying subscription expense is the amount a subscriber paid in the year for a digital news subscription with a QCJO that does not hold a license as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Broadcasting Act. To qualify for the credit, a digital news subscription must entitle an individual to access content in digital form that is primarily original written news.

How to apply
A new form, T622, Digital News Subscription Tax Credit, and process will be published so that organizations can get confirmation that the subscriptions they offer are eligible as qualifying subscriptions. Eligible subscriptions will be published on the CRA’s webpages.

Organizations whose subscriptions no longer qualify for the credit are required to inform their subscribers.

How to claim the credit
Individuals who have entered into an agreement with a QCJO for a qualifying subscription that is eligible, can claim the credit on their income tax return for the years 2020 to 2024.

This essentially amounts to pushing propaganda, since the Government can easily decide what does and does not count as a Qualifying Canadian Journalism Organization. It effectively subsidizes (at taxpayer expenses), outlets and topics it wants to see advanced.

However, this is not the only subsidy that is now in place.

6. Refundable Labour Tax Credit (25% Of Salary)

1. What is the proposed new refundable labour tax credit?
The budget proposes to introduce a new refundable labour tax credit (Tax Credit) on qualifying labour expenditures (Qualifying Labour) payable to an eligible newsroom employee of a qualifying journalism organization (Qualified Organization).

4. What is Qualifying labour?
Qualifying Labour for a taxation year includes the salary or wages payable by a Qualified Organization to an eligible newsroom employee in respect of the portion of the taxation year throughout which the organization is a Qualified Organization. The salaries and wages will be reduced by the total of all amounts of assistance that a Qualified Organization received or is entitled to receive in respect of the salary of eligible newsroom employees. The amount of Qualifying Labour will be limited to $55,000 in respect of each eligible newsroom employee.

5. What salary and wages are eligible as Qualifying Labour?
Qualifying Labour will include salary and wages payable to an eligible newsroom employee in respect of a period on or after January 1, 2019. As such, salary and wages that are in respect of a period before January 1, 2019 will not be Qualifying Labour. In addition, salary and wages will be Qualifying Labour of an organization only if they are in respect of a period throughout which the organization is a Qualified Organization.

6. What is an eligible newsroom employee?
An eligible newsroom employee, in respect of a Qualified Organization in a taxation year, means an individual who:
is employed by the Qualified Organization in the taxation year; works, on average, a minimum of 26 hours per week throughout the portion of the taxation year in which the individual is employed by the Qualified Organization; at any time in the taxation year, has been, or is reasonably expected to be, employed by the Qualified Organization for a minimum period of 40 consecutive weeks that includes that time; spends at least 75% of their time engaged in the production of news content, including researching, collecting information, verifying facts, photographing, writing, editing, designing and otherwise preparing content; and meets any prescribed conditions.

Up to 25% of an employee’s salary (of the first $55,000) would be subsidized by the Government, or more correctly, by taxpayers. This means potentially $13,750 of an employee’s salary in total, and that’s per employee. This is designed for full time media outlets.

But these handouts aren’t limited to full time media outlets. Even part time, or infrequent periodicals can benefit from the taxpayer money.

7. Canada Periodical Fund ($1.5M Limit)

Limits of government assistance
Except for farm periodicals, we can fund up to $1.5 million per periodical.
.
Publication receiving the Government of Canada Refundable Labour Tax Credit (RLTC) are ineligible to the Aid to Publishers component of the Canada Periodical Fund.
.
The total financial assistance received from the Aid to publishers component of the Canada Periodical Fund and other levels of government (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal) cannot exceed 75% of any publisher’s total expenditures for the creation, production, marketing and distribution of magazines and non-daily newspapers.

The Canadian Periodical Fund, see archive, will provide a magazine or non-daily publication with up to 75% subsidization, or $1.5 million, whichever is less. Although there are rules as to how much the publication must produce anyway, it’s still a significant amount of taxpayer money.

Also note: there is the disclaimer that “periodicals that contain offensive content in the opinion of the department of Canadian Heritage” may not receive funding.

8. Special Measures For Journalism (Covid-19)

And in case the magazine or periodical doesn’t qualify for subsidies under the Canadian Periodical Fund, there is a new program announced, the “Special Measures For Journalism”. That’s right, a special program to prop up alternative media outlets during this “pandemic”.

Objectives and expected results for the Special Measures for Journalism component
The purpose of the Special Measures for Journalism component is to provide short-term emergency financial relief to Canadian magazines and community newspapers during the COVID-19 crisis in 2020. The component will provide funds for the 2020-2021 fiscal year, to publishers that have a free circulation model or low levels of paid circulation, or are published in digital format. Please note that daily newspapers will not be eligible to this new component.

The component provides a flexibility to allow publishers to direct funds to the areas of greatest need. Recipients can spend the funds on a variety of publishing activities, such as content creation, production, distribution, or business development.

This initiative is above and beyond the $595 million expense that was announced back in 2018. This is specifically to keep media outlets going “through the pandemic”. Note: it excludes daily publications, which means that the more infrequent outlets would get it. It creates the huge conflict of interest by subsidizing outlets who most desperately need the money. And how much money?

The maximum amount that can be awarded to an eligible publication is $1,500,000.

Publication receiving the Government of Canada Refundable Labour Tax Credit (RLTC) can obtain funding from the Special Measures for Journalism component. Please note that the amount of any funding received will be deducted from the RLTC.

The total financial assistance received from Special Measures for Journalism and other levels of government (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal) cannot exceed 75% of any publisher’s total expenditures for the creation, production, marketing and distribution of magazines and community newspapers for the current fiscal year.

Again, this applies to non-daily publications, such as weekly or monthly outlets. These are typically the ones who would need it the most. Wonder if giving favourable coverage was a requirement.

If an outlet receives no subsidies, it could theoretically be subsidized under this program to the tune of 75%, or $1.5 million. If subsidies exist from other sources, it could still be topped up to reach that amount.

If a 75% subsidy amounted to $1.5 million, that would mean the organization in question ran up some $2 million in expenses in a year. Considering that non-daily outlets are excluded, most, if not all, of the less frequently published media companies would fall into these limits.

Similar to the Canadian Periodicals Fund, there is the disclaimer that “periodicals that contain offensive content in the opinion of the department of Canadian Heritage” may not receive funding.

This program is similar in many ways to the Canadian Periodical Fund, but removes many of the limitations that had been imposed.

9. Canadian Media Is Bought Off

Even for periodicals that didn’t qualify normally, there is now a grant of up to $1.5 million for the year. One has to assume that any coverage of the “pandemic” would be friendly towards the Government.

Regarding outlets that didn’t qualify beforehand, are they really going to bite the hand that feeds them? After all, if their coverage becomes too critical of the Government narrative, they may find that the CRTC concludes their content to be offensive.

Even without an access to information request, it’s possible to estimate how much an organization will take. If it’s a regular publication, and the approximately salaries are known, just multiply $13,750 times the number of employees. For less frequent publications, just multiply their total expenses by 75%. Far from exact, but these will provide rough estimates.

Now, are any of these media outlets likely to seriously challenge the Government on this “pandemic” narrative? Probably not.

Go back to the video at the start. Even Tam admits that social media censors, both by deleting content, and by using the algorithms to make them invisible.

10. Followup With Canada Revenue Agency

Hello ********,

The Government remains committed to supporting newsrooms while respecting the basic principle of journalistic independence.

Now, more than ever, strong and independent news media are essential to contribute to an informed public and an effective democracy.

To be eligible for the journalism tax measures, an organization must first be designated as a qualified Canadian journalism organization (QCJO). Once designated, a QCJO must then meet additional criteria for each of the tax measures:

· The Canadian journalism labour tax credit, a 25% refundable tax credit on salaries or wages payable in respect of an eligible newsroom employee for periods beginning on or after January 1, 2019.

· The digital news subscription tax credit, a 15% non-refundable personal income tax credit for digital news subscription costs paid by an individual to a qualified Canadian journalism organization, which applies to qualifying amounts paid after 2019 and before 2025.

· A new type of qualified donee called a registered journalism organization for not-for-profit journalism organizations, which is in effect as of January 1, 2020.

A QCJO that meets the additional criteria can claim the Canadian journalism labour tax credit by completing schedule T2SCH58 Canadian Journalism Labour Tax Credit and filing it with its return of income for the year.

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has been receiving QCJO applications since December 2019. With the establishment of the Independent Advisory Board on Eligibility for Journalism Tax Measures (the Board) in March 2020, and the legislative amendments that were proposed in April 2020, the CRA is in a position to provide journalism organizations with the support they need, beginning with the QCJO designation.

You can find information about applying for QCJO designation and the application form at Qualified Canadian journalism organization.

The CRA is working with the Board to seek its recommendations on whether applicant organizations meet certain QCJO criteria related to original news content and journalistic principles and processes.

The confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act prevent the CRA from disclosing the names of organizations that have applied for, received, or been denied QCJO designation. We are able to advise that QCJO designations are now being issued, with files being addressed on the basis of the order they were received.

For more information on the tax measures to support journalism, please go to Frequently Asked Questions.

Sincerely,

************************

Media Relations| Relations avec les médias
Canada Revenue Agency | Agence du revenu du Canada
For media inquiries | Pour les demandes médiatiques : cra-arc.media@cra-arc.gc.ca

Max Boykoff’s Revenge On Science: Creative Climate Communications, Part II

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for earlier review of book.

CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord
CLICK HERE, for Part XII, Joel Wood and Carbon tax “option”.
CLICK HERE, for Part XIII, controlled opposition going to SCC.
CLICK HERE, for Part XIV, Mark Carney, UN Climate Finance Envoy.
CLICK HERE, for UN global taxation efforts.

2. Why Focus On This Book?

Most “scientists” involved in the climate change business at least claim that their focus is on the science itself. However, a subset has emerged which focuses on the science of persuasion.

That’s right, the goal isn’t using scientific research to PROVE that climate change is a serious and ongoing global threat. Rather, the goal is using social science methods to CONVINCE people that the threat is real. These are two very different things.

In layman’s terms, this book reads like a propaganda manual for tricks and techniques of persuasion. There never appears a moment of doubt in Boykoff’s mind that climate change is urgent. He seems to views the public’s disengagement simply as a communications issue. As such, this book focuses on emotionally manipulative tactics to get around that.

The idea is creepy enough. The fact that there is an entire segment of academia that focuses on this area is very troubling. Unfortunately, Boykoff is entirely serious about his work. Also, the many, many sources he cites are serious.

3. About The Author, Maxwell Boykoff

His professional biography is available here.

Max’s research and creative work has developed primarily in two arenas:
(1) cultural politics of science, climate change and environmental issues = this refers to ways that attitudes, intentions, beliefs and behaviors of individuals and groups shape (and are shaped by) the perceived spectrum of possible action in the context of science-policy, climate change and environmental issues.
.
(2) transformations of carbon-based economies and societies (with emphasis on the interface of science and practical action) = this refers to decarbonization politics, policies and decision-making, with particular interest in how these activities find meaning in people’s everyday lives, as well as how they, in turn, feed back into science-policy decision-making.

4. Specific Examples From CCC Book

(Page 18) Boykoff cites some research suggesting that racial and gender politics should be injected into the subject. Supposedly, racial minorities are going to be disproportionately impacted, and that needs to be discussed openly. Also, female researchers are more likely to have their work ridiculed and mocked. Obviously that is because of sexism and not poor research. That’s right, race and gender are now dimensions in the climate change debate.

(Page 21) A technique called “pre-bunking” is introduced. This is a form of inoculation, which climate change pushers will attempt to pre-empt criticism or questions ahead of time. They do it to sew seeds of doubts in people who would otherwise see obvious problems with the research.

(Page 23) One idea is go beyond simply telling the truth. The focus here is to go beyond simply stating facts and conclusions, and to introduce a “story-telling” element to it. By doing this, people are more accepting of the story, and are less likely to pick up on deficiencies in the arguments themselves.

(Page 26) This is the start of Chapter 2. This chapter gets shifting the discussion away from a scientific one, and appealing to a more emotional issue. By framing it as a social issue, there is more of a focus on people’s ability to act. One technique suggested is to keep it “upbeat” so that others will remain optimistic that their actions will have consequences. Boykoff’s sources also suggest moving away from the “DOOMSDAY APPROACH”. This should have the effect of keeping people more engaged if their aren’t told it is hopeless.

(Page 35) There is more detail about how to turn climate change into stories. Stories in general have: main characters, villains, plot, description, complexity, some ambiguity, and conflict resolution. Boykoff talks about telling the “facts” of climate change as if it were a story. This will do wonders to keep people engaged. Interestingly, the approach is to water down the hard facts, and to focus more on a compelling narrative.

(Page 45) The book heads towards cultural politics and interdisciplinary communication. What this means is that taking different approaches, or combining approaches, may work best depending on who the specific audience is. Page 47, Boykoff begins to detail the actual communication training that climate change pushers are being given in order to more effectively market this concept. Yes, there is now formal training in how to peddle this.

(Page 50) Boykoff talks about a “building bridges” approach, something he also refers to as a “common ground” approach. This involves making some effort to find out what other people are interested in, and building a relationship with them. Climate change information will gradually be introduced via this relationship. The other people will eventually be sold on the agenda, but without realizing that was your goal all along. The entire tactic is emotional manipulation, and the worse form of bonding that can take place.

(Page 58) Boykoff discusses some of the research that has been done across demographic groups and across political leanings. He also explains that the climate change agenda can still be pitched to almost everyone, but the message needs to be shifted depending on which group you are addressing.

(Page 96) We get into the idea of adding visualizations (images) to help sell the climate change agenda. The idea here is that if people can actually see what is happening, it should compel them more strongly to act. Now, it doesn’t really matter if what people see is what is truly happening. What’s important is that they see what they should.

(Page 132) Boykoff talks about the framing climate change in certain ways. One is as a sacrifice v.s. benefits approach. This is one where the experts will outline the sacrifices needed (such as your standard of life) and various benefits that will come. Always, there is the bit about making the world a better place for those in developing countries. After all, they had no hand in this. This is a combination of guilt tripping and a call to patriotism, and put together beautifully.

(Page 190) Boykoff explains more of this “silver buckshot approach”, as opposed to the silver bullet. In short, there have to be multiple forms and paths to spread the message of climate change at any given time. Since no one technique will work on everyone, we need many streams ready to convince people of the cause. And really, that is what this book is: listing and detailing these multiple paths.

In short, Boykoff suggests inserting climate change into the discussion wherever possible. Though he doesn’t explicitly add this, it’s implied that it should be done even when the above issue has nothing to do with it.

Make the connections. And make the other people see those connections. Sometimes best if done subtly, as you don’t want your agenda to be too obvious.

The examples above are by no means exhaustive, but should demonstrate how devious and cunning the author is. He outlines technique after technique to push the narrative. And these techniques are lifted directly from psychological and sociological research. Boykoff is applying those findings in his quest to do a better job of selling climate change to the public.

5. Boykoff Avoids Actual Research

You will likely notice that Max Boykoff never gets into the so-called climate change science. He mainly avoids any real detail on how climate change research is conducted. Why is that?

It’s because this entire book shies away from telling people the hard and fast truth (at least as he perceives it), and focuses on indirect and roundabout ways of getting people on board. In short, this book is still intended to push the climate change agenda, but just shows ways to be more sneaky and dishonest about it.

Was this a worthwhile read? Yes, in the context of knowing how your enemies are lying and manipulating you. Boykoff gives an in-depth, well researched book on exactly that. If nothing else, he if very thorough in detailing these underhanded methods.

Max Boykoff’s Revenge On Science: Creative Climate Communications, Part I

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord

2. US & Canadian Copyright Laws

Disclaimer #1: The Canadian Copyright Act has a “fair dealing” provision, which allows for copyrighted material to at times be used for specific purposes: research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review and news reporting. Click Here and also Click Here for more information.

Disclaimer #2: The U.S. Copyright Act has a “fair use” provision, which states that the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Click Here to read the text.

This should be obvious, but just to clarify, this article is about criticizing, commenting on, teaching and researching purposes.

3. About The Author, Maxwell Boykoff

His professional biography is available here.

Max’s research and creative work has developed primarily in two arenas:
(1) cultural politics of science, climate change and environmental issues = this refers to ways that attitudes, intentions, beliefs and behaviors of individuals and groups shape (and are shaped by) the perceived spectrum of possible action in the context of science-policy, climate change and environmental issues.
.
(2) transformations of carbon-based economies and societies (with emphasis on the interface of science and practical action) = this refers to decarbonization politics, policies and decision-making, with particular interest in how these activities find meaning in people’s everyday lives, as well as how they, in turn, feed back into science-policy decision-making.

Feel free to check into his other works.
Now for the book itself.

4. Table Of Contents

(1) Here And Now
(2) How We Know What We Know
(3) Do The Right Thing
(4) Ways Of Learning, Ways Of Knowing
(5) It’s Not You, It’s Me…. Actually It’s Us
(6) Academic Climate Advocacy & Activism
(7) Silver Buckshot
(8) Search For Meaning

5. Quoting Creative Climate Communications

(From back cover) Conversations about climate change at the science-policy interface and in our lives have been stuck for some time. This handbook integrates lessons from the social sciences and humanities to more effectively make connections through issues, people and things that everyday citizens care about. Readers will come away with an enhanced understanding that there is no “silver bullet” to communications about climate change; instead a “silver buckshot” approach is needed where strategies effectively reach different audiences in different contexts.

One thing that will be clear right away: this is not about using scientific methods to PROVE that climate change is a serious threat. Rather, it is about using scientific methods to CONVINCE people that climate change is a serious threat. Very different things.

We live in remarkable times. Amidst high-quality and well-funded research into the causes and consequences of climate change, conversations in our lives — and climate communications — are stuck. Consciously or unconsciously, a feeling of complacency has often weighed on our collective and our individual selves.

Another point made early on, Boykoff expresses no doubt whatsoever in the “scientific findings” of the climate change movement. The entire focus of the book is about using social science and humanities research to persuade people this is a problem.

(Page 2) Responding to these emergent needs, in recent years has been a blossoming of valuable research in the peer-review literature addressing various elements of this larger challenge. More research groups, organizations, institutions and practitioners around the world have increasingly explored creative spaces of climate communication to better understand what works where, with whom (what audiences), when and why.

Boykoff makes an important note here. He is not by any means a revolutionary here. “Climate communications” is a growing field, with people all over the world trying to determine better methods for “selling” the climate change claims. In short, this is research about marketing. Not science.

(Page 2) Creative approaches involve the deployment of multimodal communications. A mode is a system of choices used to communicate meaning. What might count as a mode is an open-ended set, ranging cross a number of systems, including but not limited to language, image, color, typography, music, voice, quality, dress, posture, gestures, special resources, perfume and cuisine.

What superficial points are listed?

  • language
  • image
  • colour
  • typography
  • music
  • voice
  • quality
  • dress
  • posture
  • gestures
  • special resources
  • perfume
  • cuisine

We are still just on the second page, and already getting an introduction into the very superficial traits which can subtly be used to convince people of our arguments.

Forget facts, research, data, and logic. This is all about presenting a good sales pitch.

(Page 3) Among many elements seeping into the environments, I consider the dynamics that shape creative and potentially effective messages as well as messengers of those climate change communications. Over time, broad references to communications through media platforms have generally pointed to television, films, books, fliers, magazines, radio and internet for pathways for largescale communications.

Additional modes and manifestations of communications also include (analyses of) documentary films about dystopian futures, stand-up comedy about climate and cultures, podcasts about climate science and policy interactions.

Boykoff notes the traditional forms of media, but laments that they are not enough by themselves to do the job. The job of course, is “pitching” the climate change agenda.

(Page 4) Meeting people where they are takes carefully planned and methodical work. It does not mean “dumbing things down” for different audiences. Through this process of assessment of research and practice in these areas, conversations can more capably seek answers to a provocative question Mike Hulme posted in 2009, “How does the idea of climate change the way we arrive at and achieve our personal aspirations and our collective social goals?”

(Page 5) KNOW THY AUDIENCE
These creative (climate) communication endeavors must start with consideration of the audience. These may be imagined, (un)intended or actual audiences. Researchers and practitioners have increasingly paid attention to differentiated audiences as key components to deliberate development of effective communication.

Knowing who your audience is actually a useful piece of advice, regardless of circumstances. However, in context of this book, it comes across as manipulation.

(Page 6) Audience segmentation and consequent message alteration has been a part of marketing and associated communications strategies since the 1950s (Smith 1956, Slater 1996). Audience segmentation endeavours as they relate to climate change communications, have proliferated over the last decade (Leal Finho 2019).

This book is about marketing strategies of climate change “communications”. Nothing more. It is about manipulative techniques designed to persuade by non-factual means.

6. Where Things Go From Here

The book is 300 pages, the last 60 of which are references. No doubt that an awful lot of work has gone into this. Yes, the intro article is relatively short, but it is setting the stage for later. Sequels will be longer and quote much more.

As alluded to earlier, this is really a book about marketing. It’s not about research done to prove that humans are causing climate change, but rather research to CONVINCE people that they are.

Rather than going into environmental research, the book delves in sociological and social psychological research methods. It looks at work previously done in the fields of persuasion, and applies those principles to “climate communications”.

Boykoff appears to have no doubts about humans causing climate change. Nor does he seem to have any reservations about using these social studies techniques to pursue what is essentially a political goal. He straightforwardly admits that it’s a growing field, and many have contributed to this area of research.

Boykoff admits that this area is “selling” or “pitching” the climate change narrative. While acknowledging it is a start, he has no problems with it. Seems the scientists have given up on the research area of climate science, and are throwing their resources into the marketing aspect.

It’s both nefarious and creepy.

Creative (Climate) Communications — Effectively Marketing Psuedo-Science

No joke. There actually is a book out on how to “effectively communicate” on climate change. Loads of logical fallacies and emotional manipulation.

1. Important Links


(Other articles on climate change scam)
https://canucklaw.ca/the-climate-change-scam-part-1/

CLICK HERE, for the article in the ironically named “Scientific American” journal, authored by Max Boykoff, to promote his book.

CLICK HERE, for link to book sale.

2. Site Promoting Book

Conversations about climate change at the science-policy interface and in our lives have been stuck for some time. This handbook integrates lessons from the social sciences and humanities to more effectively make connections through issues, people, and things that everyday citizens care about. Readers will come away with an enhanced understanding that there is no ‘silver bullet’ to communications about climate change; instead, a ‘silver buckshot’ approach is needed, where strategies effectively reach different audiences in different contexts. This tactic can then significantly improve efforts that seek meaningful, substantive, and sustained responses to contemporary climate challenges. It can also help to effectively recapture a common or middle ground on climate change in the public arena. Readers will come away with ideas on how to harness creativity to better understand what kinds of communications work where, when, why, and under what conditions in the twenty-first century.

Includes strategies that help people have productive conversations about climate change that involve listening and adapting rather than just trying to win an argument
-Bridges sectors and audiences, bringing together important material for undergraduate and graduate courses
-Shows the importance of being creative in communications about climate change in the twenty-first century – many businesses, institutions, and collectives can benefit from this, not just students and academics

Reading through this, you will notice that the topic of additional reading and research never comes up. There is no push to understand other perspectives or review scientific findings.

Instead, the focus is on using sociological and psychological techniques to convert normies to your position, without actually providing evidence. This is all about language and emotional manipulation.

Ironically, there is science involved here. But instead of science relating to researching “climate change”, the research focuses on how to change people’s minds. Seems that the priorities are all backwards.

Item #1: Strategies that help people have productive conversations. Presumably this is ways to insert climate change topics into otherwise normal talks.

Item #2: Cram more of the propaganda into university classes.

Item #3: Be innovative about #1 and #2.

3. The Scientific American Article

From synthesizing this work, I distill these lessons into some important “rules of the road.”
-Be authentic.
-Be aware.
-Be accurate.
-Be imaginative.
-Be bold.
From there, additional features on the road map help to navigate toward resonant and effective communications.
-Find common ground on climate change.
Emphasize how climate change affects us here and now, in our everyday lives.
-strong>Focus on benefits of climate change engagement.
Creatively empower people to take meaningful and purposeful action.
“Smarten up” communications about climate change to match the demands of a 21st-century communications environment.

The first items on this list would only make sense if truth was actually a goal. Be aware and be accurate are good principles.

However, climate change advocates tend to be extremely dismissive of different ideas, opinions, facts and research. A commitment to being accurate would undermine the sense of superiority that many possess.

Find common ground and emphasizing the effects are attempts to emotionally manipulate people by inserting the topic in places where it really doesn’t belong. Indeed, the goal seems to be to make “everything” about climate change. Make it an omnipresent issue.

Lately, climate change has imposed itself on the public sphere. Through extreme events linked to changes in the climate, new scientific reports and studies, and rejuvenated youth movements (along with many other political, economic, scientific, ecological, meteorological and cultural events and issues) climate change has been increasingly difficult to ignore.
.
But you wouldn’t really have picked up on that in the first round of the U.S. Democratic party primary debates that took place in Miami, Florida. As 20 candidates made their case to the American people, it was striking how minimally and shallowly they discussed climate change.

To be fair, in a debate (10 people each over 2 days), there isn’t much chance to give long answers.

However, the author, Max Boykoff, makes the point — and will repeatedly make this point — that everything is connected to climate change. He takes the Anita Sarkessian approach, though not with gender.

Sadly, this illustrates a contradiction we have been living with for some time. That is this: amid extensive research into the causes and consequences of climate change, climate communications—and thus, conversations about climate change in our lives—have remained stuck.

There are many reasons. Among them:
-Climate change is still regularly treated as a single issue. This was clearly on display in the debates, and even during the paltry time devoted to surface-level discussions of climate change.
-There has continued to be inadequate funding provided to support sustained and coordinated social science and humanities research into what constitutes more effective climate communications.
-We have all been short on creativity, and we generally have stuck to ineffective climate communications approaches (e.g. merely scientific ways of knowing) as we muddle along.

Interesting take on the problem. Max Boykoff goes on about how the science is sound, but that we just aren’t making any headway in communicating the solutions.

Yes, climate change is still treated as a single issue (that part is true). The author’s goal is to make it an issue of everything. Again, the Anita Sarkeesian technique.

All the money that we pay in various carbon tax schemes apparently aren’t needed for climate change research. Rather, they are needed to SHARE THE RESULTS of the climate change research.

Boykoff seems to believe that it is the “strictly scientific” approach to sharing research that keeps people from seeing what is before their eyes. Seems condescending.

<

p style=”padding:2px 6px 4px 6px; color: #555555; background-color: #eeeeee; border: #dddddd 2px solid”>Yet climate change is a collective action problem that intersects with just about every other area of life. It traverses critical issues such as public health, jobs, education, inequality, poverty, violence, trade, infrastructure, energy, foreign policy and geopolitics. While everyday people clearly have the capacity to care, they reasonably often focus on immediate concerns, such as issues of job security, local school quality, crime and the economy. In recent years, however, it has become more and more clear that these issues are interlinked with climate change.

So, in making these connections, we can more effectively get to the heart of how we live, work, play, find happiness and relax in modern life, shaping our everyday lives, lifestyles, relationships and livelihoods.

Apparently we are too naïve to see the forest for the trees. Ordinary people have lives to live. We don’t spend every waking moment trying to connect aspects of our lives with climate change.

Again the author assumes, with no evidence, that every major aspect of your life is connected to climate change. It must all be pointed out.

Of course, Boykoff will never get into the conflict-if-interest that plagues climate change research. Most of it is funded with a certain outcome expected. Remember, if you aren’t concluding that climate change is a threat to humanity, then you likely won’t be funded anymore. Why keep financing climate research if it isn’t an emergency?

There has been an urgent need to improve communications about climate change at the intersections of science, policy and society. With that in mind, I wrote Creative (Climate) Communications. It is essentially a handbook that bridges sectors and audiences to meet people where they are on this critical 21st-century challenge. In the book I integrate research from the social sciences and humanities that has provided insights into better understanding what communications work, where, when, why and under what conditions.

I also examine how to harness creativity for more effective engagement. I integrate these lessons by assembling what I call features on a “road map” along with “rules of the road.” The guide is then meant to help as researchers and practitioners proceed with both ambition and caution into struggles to effectively address the many issues associated with climate change.

Although Boykoff doesn’t come right out an say it, book is about marketing techniques. What tactics are most persuasive and under what circumstances? People can’t straight up accept “facts and truth”, it needs to be pointed out again and again.

In short, most people are too stupid to see the big picture. Boykoff implies it, but doesn’t not actually state it.

Through this guidance, I seek to help maximize effectiveness and opportunities and minimize mistakes and dead ends in a resource-, energy- and time-constrained environment. In putting this together, I also emphasize that successful and creative climate communications strategies must be tailored to perceived and intended audiences and can be most effective when pursued through relations of trust. And I underscore that context is critical; cultural, political, social, environmental, economic, ideological and psychological conditions matter.

Move away from hard data and facts. Use “soft techniques” to sell it. To once more point out the obvious, everything is connected to climate change.

I also argue that an expanded approach involves processes of listening and adapting rather than winning and argument or talking people into something. Authentically considering other points of view fosters meaningful exchanges and enhances possibilities for finding common ground. Facts established through scientific ways of knowing about climate change are important, but they are not enough. We therefore need to enlarge considerations of how knowledge influences actions, through experiential, emotional, visceral, tactile, tangible, affective and aesthetic ways of learning and knowing about climate change.

Facts aren’t enough. Tell people again and again, that climate change impacts everything. Look for more subtle ways to get your message across.

4. Reflection On This Article


To address the elephant in the room: it is darkly amusing to post in “Scientific American” about scientific methods to convince people to accept pseudo-science about climate change.

Boykoff mentions several times about considering other peoples’ perspectives. But this is hypocritical considering the amount of times “skeptics” or “deniers” are ridiculed or scorned for trying to find out the truth.

Boykoff also neglects any mention or idea that any of the “climate change” findings might be exaggerated or flat out wrong.

It seems the climate-change industry has given up on science, and instead focuses its efforts on trying to market their agenda.

Might be worth buying the book just to do a thorough debunking of it. Understand your enemy after all.

Kirsten Jenkins: Humanizing Sociotechnical Transitions Through Energy Justice

1. Go Check Out Uppity Peasants Site


This is a fairly new site, however, it has some interesting content on it. Well researched, it will give some alternative views on how we are really being controlled. It you haven’t been there, what are you waiting for?

2. About The Authors


CLICK HERE, for the profile of Kirsten Jenkins. Side note: no shocker she has cited Frank Geels.

CLICK HERE, for Benjamin Sovacool.

He is a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), due to be published in 2022, and an Advisor on Energy to the European Commission’s Directorate General for Research and Innovation in Brussels, Belgium.

He has played a leadership role in winning and managing collaborative research grants worth more than $19.6 million, including those from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. National Science Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Energy Technology Development and Demonstration Program of Denmark, the Danish Council for Independent Research, and the European Commission. In the United Kingdom, he has served as a Principal Investigator on projects funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, Natural Environment Research Council, and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

CLICK HERE, for Darren McCauley.

3. The Paper Itself

Humanizing sociotechnical transitions through energy justice: An ethical framework for global transformative change
Kirsten Jenkins, Benjamin K. Sovacool, Darren McCauley

Not even kidding. That is the title of the paper.

ABSTRACT
Poverty, climate change and energy security demand awareness about the interlinkages between energy systems and social justice. Amidst these challenges, energy justice has emerged to conceptualize a world where all individuals, across all areas, have safe, affordable and sustainable energy that is, essentially, socially just. Simultaneously, new social and technological solutions to energy problems continually evolve, and interest in the concept of sociotechnical transitions has grown. However, an element often missing from such transitions frameworks is explicit engagement with energy justice frameworks. Despite the development of an embryonic set of literature around these themes, an obvious research gap has emerged: can energy justice and transitions frameworks be combined? This paper argues that they can. It does so through an exploration of the multi-level perspective on sociotechnical systems and an integration of energy justice at the model’s niche, regime and landscape level. It presents the argument that it is within the overarching process of sociotechnical change that issues of energy justice emerge. Here, inattention to social justice issues can cause injustices, whereas attention to them can provide a means to examine and potential resolve them

This article is the first time I have encountered the term “energy justice”. Rather than simply dealing with a problem in a scientific and factual way, the authors add some social-justice element to it. The abstract doesn’t really explain how this works. Hopefully the body will.

Thus, it calls for greater engagement with the three-tenet energy justice approach (distributional justice, procedural justice and justice as recognition) when planning for more sustainable transitions.

Energy justice apparently consists of:

  • Distributional justice
  • Procedural justice
  • Justice as recognition

Okay, but that doesn’t really explain what it is.

Amidst serious sustainability challenges, transitions frameworks have evolved to either conceptualize or facilitate decarbonised energy systems that provide both security of supply and universal access to energy; a process that it is widely acknowledged will require new ways of producing, living and working with energy (Bridge et al., 2013; Heffron and McCauley, 2018; IEA, 2008; Mernier, 2007). In aiming to implement sociotechnical solutions, governments are increasingly utilising the language of transitions, and the concept has begun to feature in the energy policies of countries including Denmark, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (UK)

Some points that should be addressed:

  • They are quite blunt (and proud it seems) that their language is filtering into government activity.
  • Provide universal supply of energy? Is this meant to be some sort of socialist or communist idea?
  • Has it sunk in that if you remove all Carbon forms of energy that it will reduce supply, and make your universal supply harder to obtain?
  • When you say a “new way of living”, does this mean reducing the standard of living in the West to ensure that everyone has access to the same amount of energy?

Yet despite ongoing debates about ethics or justice across many fields of literature (including extended discussions between antagonist camps that have gone on across the history of political philosophy), one social element missing from transitions frameworks is explicit, practice oriented engagement with the energy justice concept and related approaches to justice concerns. Eames and Hunt (2013) draw attention to the fact that considerations of equity and justice are underrepresented within the sociotechnical transitions literature and the wider energy transitions debate, despite the fact that the concept of sustainable development, the target of many transition plans, is inherently rooted in these core notions (Hopwood et al., 2005). Transitions literatures can also fail to give due consideration to issues of landscape, health and existing property values too (Jefferson, 2017).

More points to be looked at:

  • This seems a shameless attempt to turn what is supposed to be an environmental issue into a “social justice”, and hence blur the lines.
  • “Equity and justice” and terms that need to be rammed into discussions.
  • It appears that including “social justice” would be a way to better market their ideas. They don’t seem to make an actual connection though.
  • If a platform needs to latch on to overused buzzwords to sell itself, then it’s probably not a very good platform.

Failure to adequately engage with questions of justice throughout the transition process is dangerous. It may lead to aggravated poverty, entrenched gender bias and non-participation as outcomes or by-products of ‘blinkered’ decision-making. Indeed, without a focus on justice, transitions may fail to acknowledge the burdens of having too much energy, such as waste, over-consumption and pollution, or from not having enough, where some individuals lack access, are challenged by under-consumption and poverty, and may face health burdens and shortened lives as a consequence of restricted energy choices (Sovacool et al.,2016a). This paper therefore utilizes the energy justice concept as a way of engaging with these ethical dilemmas within pre-existing transitions frameworks.

More nonsense which requires a response:

  • There is an obsession with redefining terms to suit an agenda.
  • This is energy we are talking about, not poverty, gender bias, or non-participation. That’s right, they really played the “gender” card here.
  • Burden of having too much? Can I assume the solution is to force sharing? Or rather, to force “rich” nations to hand over energy supplies?
  • Engaging with these ethical dilemmas? You haven’t demonstrated any sort of cause and effect yet.

The origins of the energy justice literature is largely reported as coming from activist accounts of energy issues using the environmental justice frame – a precursor to the energy justice concept which shares overlapping philosophical groundings

That’s right. A bunch of activists made this up.

Specifically, as environmental justice is commonly defined as the distribution of environmental hazards and access to all natural resources; it includes equal protection from burdens, meaningful involvement in decisions, and fair treatment in access to benefits……….. This approach forms the basis of the energy justice approach and framework. However, mentions of its core notions also appear elsewhere, including in the guise of the “three A’s” of availability, accessibility and affordability

It reads like the sort of nonsense one would get in a gender studies class. Only thing is that “energy” is being substituted for here.

note in this regard, that even ‘a “low-carbon” transition has the potential to distribute its costs and benefits just as unequally [as historical fossil-based transitions] without governance mindful of distributional justice’ or, as an extension, without attention to the issues of justice as recognition and due process–energy justice tenets we explore below. We argue that the energy justice concept provides one way of filling this gap.

Here, we get into some straight up Communism. Is it true that costs and benefits don’t impact everyone equally? Yes. However, there is no practical way to do this. Either you would have to forcefully arrange differences in benefits and costs to “make things right”, or you would have to alter everyone’s standard of living so that they were equal.

Guess the road to Hell could use a re-paving.

Throughout, we present three main claims, each coinciding with a level in the MLP model; the niche, regime, and landscape:

(1) That the energy justice concept can expose exclusionary and/or inclusionary technological and social niches before they develop, leading to potentially new and socially just innovation;

(2) That in addition to using the MLP to describe regimes, the energy justice framework provides a way for these actors to normatively judge them, potentially destabilising existing regimes using moral criteria;

(3) That framing energy justice as a matter of priority at the landscape level could exert pressure on the regime below, leading to the widespread reappraisal of our energy choices, and integration of moral criteria.

(1) Sounds like a way to vilify or outcast technology that is scientifically sound, because it doesn’t meet their criteria.
(2) Appears to be a method of using peer pressure and social pressure as a way of destabilizing systems.
(3) Comes across as more overt propaganda.

This governance focus means that the socio-technical literature increasingly acknowledges the political dynamics related to the process through which innovations scale, diffuse or entrench. We focus here on the most prominent socio-technical transitions framework, the multi-level perspective (MLP). The MLP takes the form of a series of nested levels, the niche, regime, and landscape

Nothing scientific. Purely political manoeuvering.

Analysis through the energy justice lens reveals that although electric vehicles (EVs) do have laudable environmental (and social) attributes, they can be exclusionary in the sense that they can perpetuate already widening gaps between the wealthy and poor, as well as potentially raising new forms and geographies of injustice – distributional and justice as recognition concerns.

I thought the point was protecting the environment. But here, they talk about how electric cars will not impact everyone equally, even if they do have considerable environmental benefits. Again, is this an argument in favour of socialism or communism?

Equal opportunity v.s. equal outcome.

In addition to applications in niches, the energy justice framework can support the current role of the MLP to describe regimes by providing a means for policy actors to normatively judge them—exposing unjust practices and resultantly, increasing regime ‘humanisation’. We illustrate this first through the exploration of nuclear power and hydroelectric power production, regimes in which there is some consensus that technological development and lock-in raises issues of justice, or injustice. We identify that the metrics, frameworks, or checklists presented above – as well as the three-tenet framework of energy justice more generally – provide a means of normatively judging both planned and current energy and future sociotechnical regimes, leading to potential re-evaluation of our energy selection criteria. These approaches also recognise the need to politicise the actualisation of energy justice itself.

Finally some honesty. This is a political agenda.

And working to “humanize” a movement? What happened to simply relying on scientific consensus?

4. Conclusions From The Paper

Energy decisions are all too frequently made in a moral vacuum, culminating in a strong normative case for combining the literature on sociotechnical transitions with concepts arising from energy justice. Moreover, we illustrate that energy justice can play a role at each level of one of the more expansive sociotechnical transitions frameworks, the MLP. Within this latter contribution, (1) the energy justice concept could expose exclusionary niches, (2) provide a means for actors to normatively judge regimes, and (3) through the framing of energy justice at the landscape level foster the reappraisal of our energy choices and integration of moral principles. Across all stages of this argument, we present a case for not only mitigating environmental impacts of energy production via sociotechnical change, but doing so in an ethically defensible, socially just way.

To repeat, this is not about environmental protection. It is about blending a social justice causes and lingo into an unrelated topic.

Our caveats come as recognition of the intricacies of politics and political processes around energy transitions and energy justice. For as Meadowcroft (2009) highlights, long-term change is likely to be even messier and more contested than the transitions literature discusses. Indeed, there are likely to be political aspects that approaches such as the MLP are ill equipped to negotiate, and trade-offs that a tenet approach to energy justice cannot entirely resolve.

This may be the most honest thing they say. Politically, this is a very tough sell. They also admit that there “energy justice” approach will not answer the hard questions.

Nonetheless, they still cover those facts in academic jargon.

5. My Own Thoughts

The authors keep repeating that they are just “framing the issue”. In reality, they are publishing propaganda.

There is nothing scientific that the paper adds. There is no building on previous work, or fact checking of previous research. It is entirely about manipulating people to their cause by pretending it is a “social justice” issue. This is blatant activism, masquerading as science.

I also noticed a lot of overlap with the Frank W. Geels article. Do they merely cite each other, or do they just republish the same articles over and over again?

This environmental movement seems to have a lot of self-inflicted problems. For example, this obsession with “energy justice” and other non-issues actually stonewalls progress that they could have made.