Criticism of the "Together Declaration" (aka "Together") organisation

The scientific basis for global and national Net Zero Carbon initiatives is unassailable.  The evidence for AGW is so overwhelming that the IPCC says, in AR6 WG1 (2021):

“It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.”

As well as addressing risks associated with the worsening situation from AGW and its impacts on (eg) extreme weather events, climate migration, threats to global food and energy security, many actions taken to address AGW have other benefits for local neighbourhoods.  Reducing the air pollution from internal combustion engines improves health and wellbeing outcomes.  Creation of sustainable cities and “15 minute cities” improves the liveability of population centres as well as protecting the environment from further degradation.   

This does not stop those who are doubtful or sceptical about AGW from resisting plans to decarbonise local economies or the global one.  Hard-core dismissives of AGW are finding it increasingly difficult to justify their views, as the science behind AGW has become clearer with each passing decade.  However, such resisters have shifted their focus, over the decades, from “it’s not happening” to “it’s not us”, then to newer lines of resistance, for example “it’s not serious” and/or “it’s too costly to tackle it”, or even “tackling it damages local communities and economies”.
An example of the last of these newer lines of resistance is seen in the “Together Declaration” movement in the UK, which appears to be a loose collection of individuals under an umbrella of concern of loss of freedoms and imposition of overly restrictive, allegedly undemocratic government policies.  The movement originally emerged in the early days of the covid pandemic but has more recently been active in resisting actions to tackle AGW, for example local Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) schemes in the UK.

Here’s the DeSmog entry about Together:
https://www.desmog.com/together/
“The Together Association is a right-wing campaign group in the UK initially founded by businessman Alan D. Miller in August 2021 as a platform to oppose COVID-19 vaccine measures.  The group has since evolved to also campaign against net zero policies and air pollution control measures. These include a “No to Net Zero” campaign, a campaign against the expansion of London’s Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ), and a campaign against the UK’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood Schemes (LTNs).  The group goes by multiple names, including “Together Declaration”, “Together Association”, “Together Members”, and “Together”.  In November 2023, Together co-published a report with climate science denial group Climate Debate UK, titled “’Clean’ Air, Dirty Money, Filthy Politics”, authored by Climate Debate UK founder Ben Pile, which argued that clean air policies “are not based on science, and are not democratic”. Following the release of the report, Together launched a campaign calling on constituents to ask their MPs for more transparency on net zero with regard to “funding and influence on net zero policies”… Together launched the “No to Net Zero” campaign in September 2023, the launch page of which claimed net zero was “wrecking our economy” and [that it] is based on “wildly exaggerated fears about the future”.  At the start of February 2023, Together launched a “No to ULEZ Expansion” campaign, with the campaign page labelling ULEZ as “undemocratic, unfair and unjustified,” and based on “desperate ‘spin’ and junk science”.  In September 2023, a Byline Times report found that Together was involved in organising anti-ULEZ actions in London. The report also revealed that members of the group’s board and cabinet were involved in anti-ULEZ groups including the Stop ULEZ Coalition and Action Against ULEZ Expansion, a group that has been keeping track of which ULEZ cameras in London had been vandalised.  DeSmog revealed in September 2023 that administrators of the Action Against ULEZ Extension Facebook group have questioned established climate science and promoted conspiracy theories about governments attempting to impose draconian lockdowns via green policies… The group [ie Together] also argued that alternative energy technologies were not feasible, despite increasing global reliance on renewable energy, claiming:  “Under Net Zero we are asked to give up fossil fuels before there are alternative energy sources in place. All that means is we get poorer, hungrier and colder.””
 
Recently, on LinkedIn, I saw a post of theirs, opposing Net Zero, and it prompted me to do some fact checking on their public stance on climate change in general and Net Zero in particular.  It quickly became apparent that Together’s claims about Net Zero were unsubstantiated, confused and inconsistent. 

Their website doesn’t seem to show a specific stance on climate change.
However, their public position on Net Zero can be seen in their 2023 document (mentioned above by DeSmog):
https://togetherdeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CleanAirDirtyMoneyFilthyPolitics_pub_2.pdf
which DeSmog say was authored by Ben Pile, although the paper itself does not say who its author was. 

Their main aim appears to be to object to some government policies and to promote a conspiracy theory to explain and justify their objections.  To quote from their paper:

“… this story is an indictment of a new compact representing elite politics, comprising governments, business, academia, and civil society, which has hitherto excluded the public… the ideological character of both the compact and the green agenda…  the public has been pushed out of politics in general, and in a number of key policy domains in particular: Covid 19 and environmental concerns being chief among them”
 
Together’s core claim about Net Zero in the paper is:

“Net Zero is ideological, not science-based  -  Net Zero policies have not been proven to be economically or technologically plausible, and require dramatic changes to people’s lives”

The paper provides no substantive evidence to support its claims.  Instead, it goes on to claim some form of conspiracy between green movements, governments, academia, wealthy philanthropists and businesses (just about everyone, it seems), with that alleged conspiracy circumventing democratic processes and imposing some form of green “ideology” on the UK public (although it fails to describe what that ideology might be, let alone to prove that such a conspiracy has led to undemocratic outcomes harming the public).

Nowhere does it mention the scientific reasons and evidence behind the adoption of Net Zero policies and plans by most countries, following the International Paris Agreement in 2015.

This gap can easily be filled in by looking at:
https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement#:~:text=Its%20overarching%20goal%20is%20to,above%20pre%2Dindustrial%20levels.%E2%80%9D
and
https://zerotracker.net/
 
Together contends that the Paris Agreement was anti-democratic because the UK’s agreement to it was not voted on specifically by the UK public.

However, the aims of the International Paris Agreement were supported in the UK by the proper, democratically enacted and implemented Climate Change Act 2008, which committed the UK to decarbonisation by mid-century. 
The report from Together makes very little mention of the Climate Change Act 2008 or the democratic processes that produced it, only referring to it in pejorative terms. 

This gap can be rectified by looking at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Act_2008
and:
https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/CCC-Insights-Briefing-1-The-UK-Climate-Change-Act.pdf

From which:
“The notion behind the Act was that while politicians might disagree on how to respond to climate change, they shouldn’t disagree on whether to respond. The Act was passed in the UK Parliament in November 2008 by an overwhelming cross-party majority (only 5 MPs out of 646 voted against it) and has continued to be strongly supported across the UK and devolved legislatures since. Its passage benefited from a strong civil society campaign and several prominent reports in the preceding years that made clear the evidence for the expected damages from future climate change and the rationale for addressing it, including the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007) and the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (2006) – which was commissioned by the UK Government”

The Act resulted from the usual, transparent and well-debated democratic processes in UK Government.  There is no substantive criticism of that process in the Together paper, although they do note that the Act had broad cross-party support (thereby somewhat shooting their own argument in the foot).

It’s worth noting at this point that the scientific evidence for AGW and the need to tackle it has strengthened since 2008 (the date of the Act) and since the IPCC’s fourth Assessment Report , as per the most recent IPCC Assessment Report, AR6 WG1 (in 2021).
 
The conspiracy theory at the root of Together’s thinking becomes obvious from this passage in their paper (with emphasis added by me):

“… an apparent belief that ‘behaviour change’, equivalent to radical changes to lives, livelihoods, lifestyles, and the wider economy, can be produced by mere ‘compelling narratives’ and policies that provide ‘support for informed choices’. It is this report’s argument that such beliefs, which underpin Air Pollution Policies (“APP”) are not premised on people making choices, but on policies that enforce ‘behaviour change’, and that as such are not merely undemocratic, but antidemocratic. The change to society being sought by parties attached to the green agenda are not merely the alteration of such things as city plans and road usage, but the political order itself: the exclusion of the public from political decision making…”
 
APP (Air Pollution Policies) seem to be the main target Together uses to obliquely criticise Net Zero (by association), by pointing out local resistance to some APPs (“anti-car and air pollution policies” as Together calls them) in some communities (based on restrictions to vehicular traffic – presumably restrictions on polluting ICE vehicles, primarily, rather than non-polluting EVs). 

This misses a huge point – that Net Zero is driving the switch from ICE vehicles to EVs, both to improve air quality and to progress the decarbonisation transition.  A more valid objection would be to criticise the high purchase cost of EVs compared with equivalent ICE vehicles.  But that argument does not appear explicitly in the Together report.  I suspect that this omission is because such an objection leads to a natural recommendation – that Government should intervene to provide greater financial incentives for the switch to EVs – something the Together movement would not want to see happen and therefore would not want to recommend. 

It seems that Together uses local resistance to some APPs as a trojan horse to justify its resistance to Net Zero.  Suffice it to say that APP and Net Zero are not one and the same thing.  And, bizarrely, people who object to APPs on the grounds of their effect in making mobility more difficult should get behind the transition from ICE vehicles to EVs, ie decarbonisation of transport, which is one of the planks of Net Zero.    

Their conflation of Air Pollution Policies and climate change policies is explicit in this quote from the paper:
“… air pollution is a proxy battle of the wider climate war… green CSOs [Chief Sustainability Officers]… reframing climate change as air pollution, in an attempt to gain more political currency with the public. ”
 
The paper does float a few strands to try to support its objections to APPs and Net Zero, under the very reasonable-sounding and unobjectionable context that “real life requires the consideration of trade-offs between upsides and downsides of policy interventions that alter society’s functioning” and I set them out as numbered points for convenience and review, and I go on to address each point in turn:

1) “Some may believe that economic alternatives to the petrol- and diesel-powered motor car, and other appliances that are the targets of green policies, must exist before policies that require the phasing out of the older technology can be enacted”  

2) “Others may argue that the benefits of industrial, democratic, and liberal society, such as material and political freedoms, are greater than their putative drawbacks, such as an altered environment.”

3) “Finally, some may object that green claims and articles of faith, such as ‘climate crisis’ or ‘climate breakdown’ lack objective or scientific meaning, despite experts’ embrace of such concepts”  

4) “Net Zero requires a radical transformation of the relationship between the public and the state, which exceeds both science’s ability to justify it and democratic mandates”  

5) “…  policy-based evidence-making…”  

6) “… the green policy agenda requires nothing less than a radical reorganisation of society.”  


Together’s Point 1 is a straw man and argument of impossible expectations.  All major transitions involve winners and losers during transition. Decarbonisation of transport is no exception.  While it is well recognised that EVs are, on a total life cycle analysis, cheaper than their ICE equivalents (therefore representing an economic advantage to those switching), it is also acknowledged that there are barriers to the full transition.  For example, at the cheapest end of the market, the offerings of EVs are still weak compared with the incumbent ICE offerings.   (although this is changing as EVs work their way into the second hand market, and the EV ranges of all the major auto manufacturers expand over time).  The main objection here could be overcome by enacting stronger government policies that protect the poorest and most vulnerable from unaffordability of transport.  That’s not an issue that is unique to electrified transport – it has existed for a long time during the era dominated by ICE vehicles).

The economic advantages of EVs are already clear and will only get stronger as volumes of production increase (achieving economies of scale) and as the relevant technologies improve but this will take time as the world is still in the early stages of the transition
 
Together’s Point 2 is at least more debatable, apart from the fact it presents a false dichotomy, phrasing it as a choice between: “industrial, democratic, and liberal society … material and political freedoms … [versus] … altered environment.”

Together’s phrasing tells volumes about their underlying attitude to the environment.  To quote, it talks about “… putative drawbacks, such as an altered environment…”

At the start of this article, I quoted the IPCC, which concluded, on the overwhelming scientific evidence that it is unequivocal that human activities have resulted in “… widespread and rapid
changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere”.

Not “putative” at all.  Proven.  Scientifically.

It used to be estimated that it would cost about 1% of global GDP to tackle AGW successfully (Stern, 2006).  However, more recent work on this suggests that acting on AGW (eg through Net Zero policies) might well be GDP-positive.  See, for example, Ekins and Zenghelis (2021) “The costs and benefits of environmental sustainability”.

Another useful source is Keen (2022), in which it is suggested that the costs of inaction on AGW, ie the global damages from AGW, might grow to nearly 100% of global GDP by 2100. 
The Together paper does not offer any credible sources supporting its point 2 above.
 
Together’s Point 3, about definitions of ‘climate crisis’ or ‘climate breakdown’ are, again, at least debatable.   

However, referring to them as “green claims and articles of faith” is to draw from the AGW skeptic’s playbook of memes, such as one claiming that those objecting to actions to tackle AGW are “like Galileo” and that the AGW advocates are like the church that persecuted him.  That anti-AGW trope is debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm
 
On Together’s Point 4, it’s possible to see the influence of the initial issue that caused Together to come into being – the objections to government measures imposed on the public at short notice to restrict movement and protect it from the immediate and real dangers of Covid 19, in the early days of the global pandemic in 2021.  I think Together are stretching it beyond a reasonable extent to use that same argument as an objection to Net Zero.  Net Zero policies operate over a much longer timeframe than covid restrictions did, and they are well supported by scientific evidence gathered over many decades, and by public opinion, compared with covid which had only been known about for days or weeks when the first government restrictions were put in place and for which there was no opportunity to consult the public.  Together is clearly trying to use some concerns about infringement of civil liberties in the early stages of the covid pandemic to build unsubstantiated grounds for supporting objections to APPs, and then by association, objections to Net Zero. 

This misuse of context is very evident in the following passage from the paper:
“APPs are the most significant intrusion of the green agenda into their lives that the public have yet experienced. Other than covid lockdowns, which were intended to be temporary, no peacetime policy has so overtly prohibited behaviour that was previously lawful, and to which the population at large had grown accustomed. People in places restricted by APPs now report that visiting relatives and taking part in family and community life, commuting to work, travelling to hospital appointments, running small businesses – especially retail and hospitality – and carrying out trades are now either explicitly prohibited or made impossibly inconvenient, through congestion caused by road closures and by fines and charges.”

Note also the use of the phrase “the green agenda”, used in a pejorative sense throughout the paper.
The phrase “green agenda” is used 7 times in the paper. “agenda” is used 49 times.

Together makes vague aspersions about funders of research into air pollution, claiming (with no substantive evidence) “there exists a face value case that research agendas are shaped by politics and philanthropy, and that research organisations shape their agendas according to funders’ priorities.”  The use of the expression “face value case” suggests they have no substantive evidence to support their claims.
 
On Together’s point 5, they offer no substantive evidence. 
It’s simply mud-slinging.

Together’s point 6 is another straw man.
 
There are legitimate debates to be had, for example about the most efficient and effective government policies to support the transition to decarbonised energy generation, decarbonised transport, decarbonised space heating, decarbonised industry and decarbonised agriculture, especially in relation to protecting the poorest and most vulnerable during transition.  And it is also legitimate to debate the extent to which it is right for governments to influence behaviour change (for example using “nudge” strategies to increase recycling rates or uptake of public transport) and the effectiveness of public money in such behaviour-influencing activities.
 
However, the decarbonisation transition by mid-century is necessary.  The evidence for that is indisputable.  Together is attempting to delay and frustrate the transition.  It is doing that by hijacking any concerns about such policy matters to justify wider resistance to Net Zero and policies that tackle AGW as well as policies that promote cleaner, healthier air.
 
According to DeSmog, Together’s affiliations are:

Affiliations

• No Farmers, No Food – Founded by Together board member James Melville and Charlotte Gracias. 
• Andrew Bridgen MP – Independent MP, former Conservative Party and Reclaim Party. Attended a parliamentary event with Alan D. Miller titled “Net Zero: The Facts”.
• Stop ULEZ Coalition – A majority of Together cabinet members or Together Members Ltd directors are part of the coalition.
• Action Against ULEZ Expansion – a number of Together cabinet members were organisers.
• British Friends of Israel Ltd – Together Members Ltd. director Francis Hoar is also a director of British Friends of Israel, alongside Global Warming Policy Foundation advisory board member and Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson, and Toby Young, director of Free Speech Union and climate science denier.
• Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART) – anti-vaccine campaign group. Former co-founder of Together Anna Rayner also founded HART. “Meet the team,” Together. Archived March 1, 2023. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/rivzm

 
It’s not difficult to see where Together’s sympathies lean.  As a further example, in a discussion about climate and energy policy in the main paper of theirs reviewed in this article, they slip into a quiet corner of the text the following statement: “In the UK, there are very few organisations that have maintained critical perspectives on climate and energy policy. The most significant of these has been the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).”
​
The GWPF is a recognised anti-AGW right-wing think tank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
 
I think that says a lot about Together’s values and ethos and their attitudes to AGW, air quality and other environmental considerations.
 
Legitimate concerns about the impacts of the decarbonisation transition on local communities can be dealt with through existing democratic channels, local planning processes, community consultations and government support for the most vulnerable.  That is the way to deal with these matters, and people should be discouraged from supporting organisations such as “Together Declaration”.  It’s just a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ with a thinly veiled undercurrent of unscientific, unsubstantiated anti-AGW, anti-Net Zero sentiment.

For an example of misinformation campaigning in Bristol that Together Declaration has been involved in, see this article in 2023:
https://novaramedia.com/2023/03/15/how-conspiracy-theorists-made-air-pollution-the-latest-front-in-the-culture-war/