Thread by @SteB777

To support this statement about how I took @guardianeco to task over this, please see this comment of mine I made, in the tweet below.

https://twitter.com/SteB777/status/1413053806129123332

Please note this is one of a series of complaints I made about the @Guardian claiming that 2C was an internationally agree safe level of warming, which it was not. It is difficult retrieving them now, but some definitely used the SEI reference.
theguardian.com/environment/20…

Here is a screenshot of my comment. I am not trying to single out either the @Guardian or the @BBC. What I am illustrating is that over the last 30 years the media and governments have seriously misled the public into believing that 2C of warming was safe.

In fact, if you look at the wording of the Stockholm Environment Institute report that defined the 2C figure in 1990, they clearly said 2C of warming was not safe.
carbonbrief.org/two-degrees-th…

From 1990, it was crystal clear that anything over 1C of warming, which has already been surpassed was dangerous and carried an increasing risk as it got warmer. As the SEI report was the reference for the 2C figure, it is crystal clear.
sei.org/publications/c…

It is impossible to know given this, as to why for the last 30 years governments and the media have misled the public into believing that 2C of warming was safe, and something we could safely work up to.

If it had been fully acknowledged 30 years ago that 1C of warming was the threshold for dangerous climate change, and not 2C - It would have meant we had to immediately start reducing carbon emissions 30 years ago.

This coordinated denial of the facts, and the false presentation of 2C of warming as safe, has allowed governments and big business to carry on increasing emissions for the last 30 years and pretend there was time to take action, which there never was.

Half of all the human carbon emissions in the whole of history, have been emitted since 1990. We had plenty of time to start acting with a gradual reduction in 1990, but not now.
ieep.eu/news/more-than…

That we haven't acted in the last 30 years, leaves us only with the option of immediate and radical reductions in carbon emissions now to prevent future catastrophe and the possible collapse of our civilization. I entirely endorse @GretaThunberg's message.

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1411017496212168706

The whole rationale of my making these points is that it will soon be COP26, and I fully expect to see governments make pledges to do something well in the future, and not the immediate action we need.

I offer a simple explanation as to why governments and the media have done this and misled the public.

We live in a very uneven society, where those in positions of power, influence and wealth, lead luxury lifestyles, with massive carbon footprints, well in excess of the average person. Governments and the media are controlled by such people.
independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…

Those with wealth, much higher than average incomes lead luxury lives, with much greater consumption and carbon footprints. They have high status. They have the most to lose if we reduce consumption and carbon emissions i.e. they would lose their power, wealth and status.

Therefore, unconsciously or consciously, they obstruct action to address the climate and ecological crisis, or constantly push taking action forward, with perpetual procrastination, because they have the most to lose by taking action.

Those with power and influence like governments, politicians, corporate CEOs (especially oil companies), the media know if the public knew the truth, they would demand action immediate, and it would be painful to the wealthiest in society, who have most to lose.

So they have misled the public to believe there was no need to take immediate action and we can put off taking action well into the future, simply to allow them to continue their luxury lifestyles.

I am more than willing to accept that much of this has been through unconscious motivation, although there is a considerable amount of knowledge about what they are doing and why.

However, the thing is, if the unconscious motivation of those with power, wealth, status and influence is so great, that it overrules their judgement, it demonstrates that they have got far too much power and influence. That it has corrupted them.

I am not sitting in judgement over the wealthy and powerful. I am simply illustrating how it is they and not the public at large who are the obstacle to addressing this crisis.

If we start telling the public the truth now, and start treating the climate and ecological crisis, as the crisis it is, the public will get behind taking immediate action now, to prevent future catastrophe. But only if the powerful stop abusing their influence over the public.

Governments and the media are seriously misleading the public by not treating the climate and ecological emergency as the crisis it is, and they keep on giving the public the false impression there is plenty of time to act, when there isn't.

@GretaThunberg has been the clearest voice on the carbon budget we have left. How on present carbon emissions we have about 8 years of our total carbon budget left to avert more than 1.5C of warming.
cbc.ca/news/science/w…

This does not mean after 8 years we have to start reducing emissions. It means after 8 years on current emissions, we would have to go to zero emissions, as we would have totally used up our remaining budget.

Yet governments are talking about their version of Net Zero by 2050. I say their version, because this is not real Net Zero, but an imaginary Net Zero created by false accounting and simply not counting many emissions.

@ClimateHuman @KevinClimate @GeorgeMonbiot @JKSteinberger @GretaThunberg

@threadreaderapp Please unroll?