Thread by @SteB777

I'm suggesting a very simple strategy for effectively addressing the climate and ecological emergency.

Any suggested strategy, which doesn't overtly involve "rapid and drastic" reductions in carbon emissions in the next few years, be dismissed as evasion.
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1424670…

Currently these is a cacophony of mutually contradictory arguments, people claiming they have the solutions. However, it really does come down to just 2 very simple questions about whether these strategies are likely to be effective in preventing catastrophe.

These 2 simple questions about the effectiveness of any suggested strategy are:

1) Will it result in "rapid and drastic reductions" in GHG emissions within the next 10 years?

2) Will it also address the ecological crisis and lead to a reversal of biodiversity loss in 10 years?

If any suggested strategy does not meet any of these 2 very simple criteria, this strategy should be dismissed out of hand as inadequate, and any arguments with it be dismissed as denial, disingenuous or even fraud.

For clarity, I am not saying this should start in 10 years time, I mean these changes should have started happening within 10 years. Ideally, as soon as possible. I am saying this should be the criteria for any talk being realistic. All the rest is evasion and sophistry.

Above all else, we need clarity. For the last near 30 years since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit we've heard lots of talk about addressing the crisis, but GHG emissions have carried on greatly increasing, and biodiversity continues to rapidly decline. This makes the talk meaningless.

Politicians are talking up their Net Zero plans by 2050, as if this means the problems are addressed. Yet 30 years ago they were saying the same things "honestly, we will address the problem, just not now, but in 20-30 years" and 30 years later everything had just got far worse.

Talk is cheap. We need action now, not hollow talk about action in 30 years time, where we will probably find out that the promises were hollow and the actions haven't happened, like during the last 30 years.

So we need to draw a line in the sand and say action now, or we don't believe a word of what you say. Really, only action counts, not hollow promises.

I am not naive. Doing what I say will need massive system change, and I am saying this is the rationale for the not at the moment, but in 30 years time argument. In reality, this is a disingenuous argument to maintain the status quo, and the aim is in 30 years time, to repeat it.

It all seems to be about avoiding system change, a change to the status quo, and any change from business as usual. This is why we need to apply these 2 simple criteria. The scientific evidence says this is what is necessary to avoid catastrophe.

I realise my arguments are probably far too simplistic for some, who will want to go off on some tangent about political reality, economic necessity etc. No, I am saying these are the physical limits to averting catastrophe. Anything else is waffle to distract.

These 2 principles should be enshrined in UN plans, be the realistic starting point in COP talks etc. Every media interviewer should confront every politician with these 2 points, and dismiss what they say unless they concede them.

We need to repeat these 2 principles over and over again to those in power. We must speak truth to power. #EitherAcknowledgeTheseTwoPrinciplesOrYouAreLying

@GretaThunberg @Fridays4future @ClimateHuman @GeorgeMonbiot @KevinClimate @JKSteinberger @Luisamneubauer @NaomiOreskes @ChrisGPackham

@threadreaderapp Please unroll?