@KevinClimate@JamesGDyke@NaomiAKlein A tangled web has been woven. In the 1990s when I said to a number of academics, that I expected politicians to reverse ferret out of commitments and pledges they made, they simply dismissed what I said as far too cynical.
@KevinClimate@JamesGDyke@NaomiAKlein However, my views were based on several insights into how modern societies, systems operate. That oil and fossil fuels were the lynchpin of the whole system and that those in charge knew any change to this would profoundly alter how the whole system operates.
@KevinClimate@JamesGDyke@NaomiAKlein The economic system since the industrial revolution, really is an intergenerational Ponzi scheme. The actual role of governments is just to maintain this, to facilitate it. This may seem an extreme statement, but it is entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence.
@KevinClimate@JamesGDyke@NaomiAKlein I'm suggesting that there is almost certainly a lot of insight at the top, that the whole system is little more than an intergenerational Ponzi scheme, and that they are doing little more than protecting the goose that lays them the golden eggs.
@KevinClimate@JamesGDyke@NaomiAKlein We must rethink everything we think we know about how the system operates. All this thinking about addressing the climate crisis is merely an epiphenomenon that sits on top of the hidden agenda of maintaining business as usual.
@KevinClimate@JamesGDyke@NaomiAKlein None of these schemes, this thinking has produced any meaningful results with carbon emissions continuing to rise and no realistic chance on the current trajectory, that they will substantially decline in the near future, as long as business as usual is maintained.
@KevinClimate@JamesGDyke@NaomiAKlein The factor not taken into account is that in the present system, for developing nationals to catch up with developed nations, in the current industrial, free market system, they have to go through the coal burning phase to develop.
@KevinClimate@JamesGDyke@NaomiAKlein This is simply because in a free market, capitalist, industrial model, you use the cheapest form of energy to industrialize, as it is all about keeping production costs down.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) Let me explain the problem with this tweet. @ClimateOfGavin accuses @ClimateBen of exaggeration. The problem is Gavin's certainty that Ben is wrong. He is actually doing what he is criticising Ben for.
2) As the levels of warming get greater, it becomes more and more difficult to predict what the impacts will be on both human society and civilization, and life in general i.e. both biodiversity.
3) To an extent, climate modellers like @ClimateOfGavin can model physical systems like the climate, because whilst a complex system, it does have simplistic components which allow it to be modelled.
1) I'd like to posit a few possibilities about our leadership.
What if when our leaders commissioned all these people, sincere academics to come up with plans to address the climate crisis, that they never really had any intention of implementing them?
2) What if these leaders were just buying time. That they hadn't got a clue what to do about it. But didn't want to stop business as usual because all their status and wealth was derived from it. But at the same time didn't want to tell people that they didn't give a damn.
3) Right from when climate change became a public story in the late 1980s the public were very concerned about it. So political leaders knew if they wanted to get the public to vote for them, or support them, they had to at least act concerned.
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.
Let me briefly explain what I mean by this. Thinking is like following a set of directions. If you take a wrong turning early on and fail to acknowledge this, you will be forever lost until you acknowledge this mistaken turn.
It doesn't matter how clever you are, what your status is, it means nothing until you recognise your error and the nature of the problem. This is because all your other reasoning based on this will be based on false premises.
This is why youngsters like Dylan, @GretaThunberg and @Fridays4future understand the problem, the climate and ecological crisis, much better than any adult who doesn't acknowledge the basic problem.
As @GretaThunberg keeps trying to warn everyone, the science derived from the IPCC SR15, essentially says on current emissions, we only have about 8 years of our total carbon budget to keep within 1.5C of warming left. ipcc.ch/sr15/
What this means, is not that we have to start reducing our emissions in 8 years time, but that we would have to go to zero emissions in 8 years time if we don't start rapidly reducing our carbon emissions immediate.
1) Let me explain this in a series of tweets. I'm not a spokesperson for @GretaThunberg. However, I was saying "change is coming whether you like it or not on my commenting on the Guardian for much longer than Greta as @john_vidal and @dpcarrington will testify.
2) Therefore, I can explain exactly what I meant by "change is coming whether you like it or not", or various versions of that, which means the same. I can't speak for Greta, but as her other arguments are almost identical to mine, I can explain what I mean.
3) There is a view, a narrative being peddled that the system as it is, is just how it is. That you will never stop overconsumption, carbon emissions etc. You are peddling this narrative. I doubt you could even explain what this means.