"Fundamentally, the economists have totally misrepresented the science and ignored it where it contradicts their bias that climate change is not a big deal because, in their opinion, capitalism can handle anything," —incredibly important warning by @ProfSteveKeen
“the repercussions of climate change were foretold in the 1972 publication “The Limits to Growth” — a divisive report on the destructive consequences of global expansion — but economists then and since failed to heed its warnings, preferring instead to rely on market mechanisms.”
“I think we should throw the economists completely out of this discussion and sit the politicians down with the scientists and say these are the potential outcomes of that much of a change to the biosphere; we are toying with forces far in excess of ones we can actually address,”
Background, because these questions are 50 years old, and the key decisions were taken ~15 years ago: we need to stop being naive, if we care for futures worth living even just for ourselves.
We face a simple choice: recognize the institutional dysfunction we normalized over the past 50 years, and maintain some hope for change; or face dark decades in the near future. It’d rather go with honesty than failure by design. @SteB777 thread:
Important addition by @w_knorr: this is a critical, well-defined problem. I struggle to explain why it's not receiving wide attention across all disciplines—but most directly: in climate science, Earth System Science & the humanities
Worth sharing: @gelderon52 wrote this good blog post on Nordhaus' critique of "measurement without data." Stunning to see scientists ignore these flaws year after year. Dear all, if we don't speak up, who will?
Dear #flyingless advocates: —let’s recall that these are political decisions, on infrastructure & who decides about the right to use it. Systemic change almost by definition won’t happen from consumer demand, certainly not by academics, this ivory tower talk needs to refocus. 2/3
Take this @RogerHallamCS21 talk instead: Likely to be far more impactful than some academics’ flight decisions. I respect any no-fly decision, but seriously: who cares? where’s your strategy (& tactics), your TOPC, unless you’re a symbol like Greta? 3/3
Why this matters: Economics evolved for a growth regime, not for a full world, that approaches biophysical limits to growth. To share + accentuate @KevinClimate's concern: Do the physical climate sciences reflect & address the limitations of economics yet?
Can we learn to use economics in better, more humane ways?
This questions goes beyond natural sciences & engineering: many social scientists, & scholars in the humanities, routinely use sophisticated quantitative & qualitative toolboxes. Let's use them where it matters 🙏
Common sense, apparently controversial: 👇 I don’t think scientists should tell us how many children to have—even less than governments should. 1/3
Some scientists promote simplistic, ethically fraught, mainstream economics-based calculations of “CO2 per child”, but this is weak, not very credible research—some would call it neoliberal victim-blaming. It just shows a lack of systems thinking - and it’s not even necessary 2/3
Wondering myself whether I want to have children, so this type of neoliberal hogwash gives me nothing, it just bores me. There are so many ways to ask better questions. 3/3
Dear energy & climate analysts: great example why most of our analyses are pure fantasy, incl. #NetZero. It’s just not possible, full stop. I imagine we will do better with more empathy and international experience.
This is vital: Most social-climate models & the resulting 'analyses' that inform and legitimize politics have turned into mythmaking machines. As @w_knorr warns, it's easy to imagine inhumane ends to this power grab. On the misuse of economics: @SFuntowiczsciencedirect.com/science/articl…
How easily experts chime into the naive-regular chants of "what a breakthrough, @IEA acknowledges physics." Great.
Dear all, can we focus on learning critical thinking? No joke, maybe start with Roy Scranton's essay (here talk): What is Thinking Good For?
To see how absurd + damaging the term 'inactivist' is: consider that MM uses it to describe activists (incl. me 🤷♂️) who don't support his (!) views, because we feel that he doesn't read the social science literature correctly. Nor even Jevons' paradox: 1/2
Even @michaelemann can't ignore basic thermodynamics: Check out Tim Garrett's decade-long & largely ignored line of research. The dynamics of our planet are not going to budge because some climate people would like them to. Let's be better than this. 🙏esd.copernicus.org/articles/3/1/2… 2/2
This tweet 👆 was just to test how I can interact with MM, who blocked me (I don't mind; indeed grateful for uncluttering my TL), along with many other climate activists working in good faith (many of whom mind & take it personally).
The Gandalf of Climate Change just dropped a 2h video, of "advice to Young People as they face annihilation." Invitation to join me in watching it, and comment / write / process as you see fit. IF you feel like writing a piece or poem and sharing—DMs open:
Thanks @RogerHallamCS21, for taking us & what's ahead seriously, and rising to the occasion. Hi everyone else, what's keeping you all? Don't you get tired of running in foreseeably self-defeating circles?
~First, you don't need to watch this video. If you don't agree or prefer doing something else, that's fine. It's your life.