I keep being asked why I don’t go into politics.
There are a few reasons: 1. I'd be rubbish at it. 2. I mean really rubbish. 3. I'd prefer to see women, people of colour and young people entering politics, rather than someone else with my profile.
But more importantly … 🧵
4. To create change, we need an ecosystem: people with a wide variety of skills, performing a wide variety of tasks.
We need researchers, journalists, campaigners, organisers, supporters, fundraisers, administrators etc, as well as politicians.
5. Some of these tasks are incompatible. For instance, if I went into politics, I wouldn’t be free to decide what I think, or to change my mind as soon as the evidence changes. I would have to bite my lip and follow a party line. In other words, I couldn’t do the things I do now.
6. And above all, I want to be part of a movement that builds a new politics, a politics which no longer relies only on a few people representing us, but allows us all a greater role in decision-making. Political rewilding, in other words. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
7. Such shifts cannot come from the centre. The centre will not propose a surrender of its own powers.
Society is like an amoeba. It moves from the margins.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’ve just finished some research about the use of biosolids (human sewage sludge) as farm manure. The results will keep me awake at night.
¾ of biosolids in the UK are spread on farmland. The rules about what it can contain are not fit for purpose. Please read and share this 🧵
Biosolids typically contain a wide range of synthetic chemicals, including antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals, personal care products, microplastics and persistant organic pollutants, among them “forever chemicals”. Yet testing is restricted to a small number of contaminants.
Spreading them across the land means spreading them through the foodchain and the ecosystem. There’s plenty of evidence of uptake of many of these chemicals by crops, earthworms and other soil animals, and of large-scale antibiotic resistance developing among soil bacteria.
The government is trying to prevent a "re-evaluation" of our imperial past. What doesn't it want us to see?
In this thread from last year, I list some of the skeletons it is seeking to keep in the closet.
Quick, look the other way!
Here's another thread on the UK's hidden colonial atrocities and their connections to today's power structures, which intersects with the first one, but draws on more examples:
Behind these histories lies an even bigger and more sacrilegious truth. It's that the system we call capitalism, which exists vaguely in our minds, but that most people see as "something to do with buying and selling" is really a system of global theft.
Billionaire power exists in conflict with democratic power.
Billionaires happen because of regulatory failure (weak anti-trust, employment, environmental laws etc).
They persist due to fiscal failure (not enough tax).
No one, in a functioning democracy, should be this rich.
When billionaires become sufficiently powerful, and governments become sufficiently weak, people start believing that they can solve the problems that made them so rich, and which they have almost certainly exacerbated.
You might as well believe in magic.
But we are now creating a superman myth, investing people like Musk and Gates with powers they either do not or should not possess.
In doing so, we enhance their power, and democracy is further weakened.
Perhaps it's unsurprising that a billionaire has no interest in structural and political change. But @BillGates's belief that he can save the planet with technologies alone, while dissing popular movements and systemic transformation, is as naive as it is arrogant.
Moreover, his attack on divestment campaigns suggests he hasn't grasped even the basic dynamics of preventing climate breakdown:
It doesn't matter how many solar plants you build unless you simultaneously, and proactively, shut down fossil fuel investment.
Otherwise the political power of those with sunk costs will impede and stymie transition. Technical change is essential, but it's only a partial answer to economic power, and no answer at all to political power.
It would be madness to build these roads in the midst of a climate emergency, and when businesses are at last adopting 21st Century technologies for meetings, instead of sending people all over the country.
We should be retiring roads, not building them. theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/f…
These days, new roads tend to be built not for the benefit of travellers, but for the benefit of contractors.
There is an interesting, perverse logic which ensures that the very worst schemes get selected. I try to explain it here: theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Revolting. And please remember the "justification", which is the justification for mass slaughter of this kind the world over:
To protect livestock.
Why must the natural world have to give way, across so much of the planet, to cattle and sheep?