Thread by @SteB777

Thanks to the @Guardian for publishing this and I agree with @MichaelEMann @ClimateHuman et al. When I studied climate science as part of my ecology degree, nearly 30 years ago, it seemed obvious to me we had to act on the climate immediately.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

I could never work out this rationale of putting off taking action on the climate and ecological crisis until some far off point into the future. The science was certain about the nature of the problem we faced, and putting off action was purely procrastination.

The only uncertainties with the climate crisis were in what time frame it would impact us, and the severity. Likewise with the ecological/biodiversity crisis. However, there was no doubt these crises existed and would become more severe as time went on.

If you look at the report of the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, it is crystal clear that it was realised 50 years ago that our societies would have to radically change direction to avoid future problems.
un.org/en/conferences…

The failure to act on the 1972 report and recommendations led to the setting up of the UN Brundtland Commission in 1983 and it's 1987 report, Our Common Future, the basis for the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/docume…

At the 1992 Rio Earth Summit 154 states signed the "United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change", which set up the COP talks, Conference of the Parties. The aims were clear cut, to stabilize atmospheric GHGs and to substantially reduce emissions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na…

Why put off reducing our Green House Gas (GHG), when it was agreed by most of the world's governments in 1992, that this needed to happen?

The only apparent rationale for delaying the reduction of GHGs, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, and the livestock industry, was to allow these very profitable industries to carry on profiting from this for as long as possible.

It could be understood that it might take time to coordinate this cessation of anthropogenic GHGs. Yet what happened in the next 30 years was these emissions rapidly accelerated and we emitted more emissions in this 30 years, than the preceding 250 years.
ieep.eu/news/more-than…

This is no unfortunate accident, as the richest countries in the world (the G20) are still subsidising the fossil fuel industry, to the tune of trillions of dollars.
theguardian.com/environment/20…

I created this thread to try and resolve this quite frankly dangerous and irrational situation, where governments and world leaders claim to be committed to addressing the climate and ecological emergency, whilst actually doing very little.
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1420231…

I've always thought that it was essential that we address the climate and ecological crisis with common solutions, which address both parts of the crisis. I am now pleased that the UN (@IPBES) has finally endorsed this strategy.
un.org/sustainabledev…

If governments are serious about tackling the climate and ecological crisis, then why don't they start now? Why is every government in the world contrarily pursuing an economic growth strategy, which assumes that the climate and ecological crisis, does not exist?

@GretaThunberg @Luisamneubauer @JKSteinberger @GeorgeMonbiot

@threadreaderapp Please unroll?