I cannot over-emphasise this point, and I cannot thank @GretaThunberg enough for highlighting this. Although I think there is a general failure to acknowledge just how profound her points are.
The scale of the climate and ecological emergency is so massive, and the scale of change necessary to address it so massive, that governments are terrified of the public backlash and demand for action, that would follow if they acknowledged it as the crisis it is.
This is their own fault (that of governments). They should have been taking urgent action decades ago. However, as I say, once they do, total system change is inevitable. This dam of inaction, is increasing the surge that will follow, once the crisis is properly recognised.
What this is about is that a relatively few people have unimaginable wealth, power and status, derived from business as usual model. But that immense privilege could evaporate in the twinkling of an eye if there was a massive public demand for action.
Therefore THE reason for governments and powerful people steadfastly refusing to treat the climate and ecological emergency as the crisis it is, is their fear they'd lose their privileged status in our societies i.e. it is all about them.
It really is an utterly absurd situation, a terrible tragedy, that our leaders are failing to act, simply because of their fear that they and their rich backers would lose their special privileged places in our societies.
This is what it is all about. Why the wealthiest and most powerful people have kept the climate and ecological emergency out of the headlines, and have stopped it being treated as the emergency crisis it is.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let me address this in full, in the context of my tweet thread. Essentially I was saying that if governments, vested interests, billionaires started treating the climate and ecological crisis as the crisis it is, then so would everyone else.
People, meaning the public at large, take their cues from their leadership. The only means people have about knowing about the wider world and events in it, are via a media controlled by the same powerful and wealthy cabal, profiting from the carbon economy etc.
We live in a very unequal world. Where if Bill Gates wants to tell us his personal views about the climate crisis, it is splashed across the front pages of the media for several weeks, and forced down our throats.
1) What if our system of governance was not what it seems? That in fact our leaders were in fact confidence tricksters ruthlessly exploiting the public for their own ends, and the benefit of others in their cabal. That it was an intergenerational scam? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidenc…
2) I have played with this idea for decades. At first it seems a preposterous proposition. That I am quite mad for even contemplating it. But bear with me.
3) Let's go with the Wikipedia description.
"A confidence trick is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their trust. Confidence tricks exploit victims using their credulity, naïveté, compassion, vanity, irresponsibility, and greed. ..."
2) This morning I remembered to take my fold up sweep net to confirm what I was seeing flying around were in fact Manchester Treble-bar (Carsia sororiata). This is because at this time they are flying endlessly and only occasionally settle.
3) I caught in excess of 15, and all those I thought looked liked Manchester Treble-bars, were indeed this species.
1) This point is so well put that I want to start a mini thread to discuss, and maybe start a discussion about why this basic fact is not being acknowledged.
Because of the climate crisis there is no future where things are not going to be radically changed and different.
3) I've always known what change is coming whether you like it or not, because I have been saying this for a very long time. However, my impression is that no national or world leader, no politician, very few journalists, really understand what this means.
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.
2) In an otherwise good article, @RHarrabin bizarrely concludes.
"What do we imagine things will be like with a rise of 2C, which was until recently considered to be a relatively "safe" level of change? " bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-…
3) If you understand the history of the 2C figure as regards to climate change, and how it was defined and explained, it is impossible to understand how any informed person thought it was a safe figure. carbonbrief.org/two-degrees-th…