Thread by @SteB777

1) I fully endorse @GretaThunberg's message, with one exception.

"We understand that the world is very complex, that many are trying their best and this isn't going to be easy."

It's a myth that many in influential positions want action, but are obstructed by circumstances.

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1385303013376598020

2) I do not blame Greta for being taken in by people in influential positions who say "I want action on the climate crisis, but you have to understand that contracts, legal obligations, public opinion, or whatever, stop us". This is simply not true and contrary to evidence.

3) The reality is that whilst these influential people would like to see the climate crisis addressed, they are actually far more wedded to their luxury lifestyles, their high status, wealth and high salaries, than they are about addressing the climate and ecological emergency.

4) I'd need to go into great depth, which would be distracting, as to how my research of the last 50 years has revealed our modern culture to be riddled with false myths about how things are. So I will just keep it simple here.

5) One of these myths is that people have a singular mind, their self, and they are either one thing or the other, but not both. This "self" is a bit of a mirage, and people can have conflicting and mutually contradictory motivations. In fact they do.

6) What I'm saying is these influential people who say they want to see the climate and ecological emergency addressed, will only allow this, if it doesn't mean any change to the system, which gives them their high status, luxury lifestyle and wealth.

7) In other words these CEOs, other influential people who tell Greta they do want action, but are prevented by circumstances in taking it, are actually far more motivated to maintaining the status quo and stopping system change, than they are to addressing the climate crisis.

8) This is why I mentioned competing motivations in people's personality make up. It is possible, indeed normal for people to have these fragmented and incoherent motivations.

9) It isn't that these people are just a bit conflicted by what they want. They are actively opposed to real system change, to the extent that they are actually obstructing and sabotaging it. Abusing their positions to prevent what they know to be necessary.

10) This is the primary obstruction which prevents change. Every person in an influential position has much more wealth, a much higher status, leads a far more luxurious lifestyle, and doesn't want to give this up.

11) Whole system change, where everything changes, where there is true equity, would threaten the lifestyle, status and wealth of all those in influential positions. Therefore unsurprisingly they are opposed to whole system change.

12) However, whole system change is the only way we can realistically address the climate and ecological emergency. This is because the impacts on ecosystems result from multiple causes of our current economic system, not just greenhouse gasses.

13) Once again whole system change is the only possible solution, to a whole system problem, caused by the way our current economic model operates. The problem cannot by resolved by just a few actions like reducing CO2 emissions @KateRaworth @ProfSteveKeen

14) As Sir Robert Watson says (former chair of IBES and the IPCC).

"We cannot solve the threats of human-induced climate change and loss of biodiversity in isolation. We either solve both or we solve neither."
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

15) As I've already established, the overall problem is that influential people in our society, politicians, media executives, CEOs, bureaucrats etc, all those who hold high office, are generally opposed to whole system change as it threatens their status and wealth.

16) Therefore we are governed by a class of people who will only countenance solutions to the climate and ecological emergency, which are consistent with the status quo being maintained i.e. their status, and they oppose system change as this threatens the status quo.

17) Of course no person in an influential position is never going to say "I'm opposed to whole system change, because it threatens my status", so they will rationalize it by blaming the public, legal contracts etc. They rationalize it with socially acceptable rationalizations.

18) One absolutely false myth, an outrageous lie, is that it is the public who prevents the politicians from taking action.

19) Climate change denial as a public phenomenon is fairly recent, within the last 15 years or so. For 20 years people voted for politicians who claimed they were striving to address the crisis. What stopped them? Certainly not the public.
theguardian.com/politics/2004/…

20) Again and again surveys find that the majority of the public, not just in the UK, but around the world, want radical action to address the climate crisis. So it isn't the public preventing action. That is a falsehood.
independent.co.uk/climate-change…

21) I want to make it clear that I regard the analysis of @GretaThunberg as the best there is. I am not criticising Greta. I am criticising the disingenuity of those who tell her they want action, but are prevented from taking it.

22) Greta is entirely correct when she identifies treating it as an actual crisis, as the most important step. If politicians went on TV to give solemn addresses saying we are in the middle of a crisis which will determine the survival of our civilization, all would change.

23) Yet the media, the speeches of politicians are full of misleading and distracting attention to issues which are nowhere near as important. Far more time is spent on economic growth and recovery, which is actually the cause of the problem.

@GeorgeMonbiot @ClimateHuman @KevinClimate

@threadreaderapp please unroll.