,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Why do so many people seem to think this is a clever argument or analogy? It's such a stupid strawman. Lets break this bullshit down... 1/ 
👉 People are not calling for a *boycott* of fossil-fuels, but a *transition* away from them over a period of time. If I said "boycott Monsanto" you'd be quite right to call me a hypocrite for spraying Round-Up on my garden. But boycott is not what people are demanding...
the school students (and others with a serious climate policy) are calling for a *transition* to 100% renewables by 2030. That's 12 years away. So arguing that they have to give up all technology right now, is just a big fat brain fail. 🧠🤦♂️
👉If we took action now, ALL those devices, including cars, would be made/powered by renewables by 2030. So there will be no need to go without those things...
☝Watch out: The fossil-fuel industry and their political minions want you to think this is a zero-sum game. It's not. We can have a fossil-free future AND most nice things too.
👉The transition people are demanding cannot be effected at the individual level: it has to be done at a Government level. So telling individuals to enact the changes they want Government to make, again, misses the point entirely of what people are asking for. Hashtag strawman3
👉Lastly: Phones, computers, internet etc are the only tools we have to communicate big ideas on a mass scale. So in fact, using fossil-fuels to promote and demand a transition to renewables is not hypocrisy: it is the single best possible use of fossil-fuels today.
That being said, of course, if you are calling for a transition to renewables it does make sense to practise what we preach and be sparing in our use of fossil-fuels 👍
If you made it all the way, here's our latest Honest Government Ad 🌏🔥
