A few years ago, very few people cared about climate breakdown. Now, the public cares a lot and wants action. This is huge. The next step is to leverage that public concern against the incumbent, recalcitrant fossil fuel industry and fossil politicians.
There are many ways to do this while also building the movement. Strikes. Global marches in the tens or hundreds of millions (we know now that 7 million does not create this leverage). Continued pressure on media and finance. XR-style disobedience. More radical direct actions.
Also pushing from within the system. Lawsuits and challenges to the legal system (e.g. ecocide law). Better and more mainstream climate storytelling. Climate candidates running & winning. Visioning in detail a harmonious human presence on Earth, the new narrative. We need it all
Goal is to get society to shift into emergency mode. This means prioritizing a habitable Earth over business as usual. We are not there yet. Under a BAU perspective, the kinds of policies and collective actions we need still seem radical. There's no incremental way out anymore
This is the fundamental problem with Green New Deal. It assumes we can still maintain current standards of energy and lifestyle, and it does not directly challenge the fossil fuel industry. We must go beyond GND, far beyond, and we can if society shifts to emergency perspective
And just forget about "net-zero by 2050," it is a business-as-usual and fossil fuel industry wet dream, and while this is the goal we are truly cooked
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Eventually we need to get to the point where world governments (the current ones or replacements) say "Sorry fossil fuel corporations, you lied for decades and we are all in mortal peril now, those who lied go to prison & we're seizing your assets and rationing supplies."
For this to happen the movement needs to get strong enough that there is no more social license for the fossil fuel industry. Remember that the legal system is just a codification of social contracts and these change... for example if the Earth's very habitability is threatened.
Obviously the sooner we get to this point, the better for all of us.
My latest: There are two fatal flaws with “net zero by 2050.” One is “net zero.” The other is “by 2050”. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
The main point of the piece: the only way out of this crisis is for society to shift into climate emergency mode. "Net zero by 2050" makes this impossible.
The fossil fuel industry LOVES "net zero by 2050." We need to directly attack the fossil fuel industry, which means an earlier goal, and - critically - binding annual targets for reductions and policy plans for achieving those annual targets.
I am calling for a rapid end to the fossil fuel industry. This is the 1st key piece for most people getting out of this alive. The 2nd key piece is reorganizing economics: degrowth.
There IS a path, those in power aren't walking on it... yet.
Lots of other important stuff, too, like ending animal agriculture, policies to stabilize population (especially empowering women), preserving wild places (Half-Earth), extending legal rights to nonhumans and places, policies to reduce inequality within & across borders...
The key thing - the thing our "theories of change" had better lead to - is getting those in power walking on this path, quickly. Whether that means pushing current / similar leadership to do this, or replacing them / gaining power ourselves somehow
I guess I'll just say I am furious at anti-vaxxers, leave it at that, and keep trying to move the needle on climate and ecological breakdown
I should probably explain the source of feeling, e.g. it's clear to me that the risk of getting vaccinated is less than the risk of not; and that choosing to not get vaccinated puts others at risk including kids; and that it leads to greater risk overall e.g. via new variants.
Also it spectacularly reveals the deep irrationality and groupthink in our society that stands as a major barrier to dealing with the even greater problem of climate and ecological breakdown
One thing that's challenging is that I've been saying the same things for a couple decades, and of course I'm glad people are now starting to listen, but it has a dark tinge because it took things getting this bad. My goal was to get people to see ahead. Anyone else feeling this?
Also, I regret not figuring out how to build a platform sooner. But it has been a very long journey, stumbling in the dark, involving multiple major career changes and a lot of intestinal fortitude. And far from over.
There is just something uniquely, grindingly frustrating about going up against deep apathy for so long, on something you KNOW with scientific certainty is extremely important. Hitting the same dumb misunderstandings over and over. It might be a new emotion that needs a new word.
A thread on the op-ed I just published in the @latimes. The Times considered it important enough to also publish a separate editorial today echoing my message. And they are right. This will be a civilization-defining topic for humanity in the years ahead. latimes.com/opinion/story/…
We all know you can't fool physics, but nowhere is that more true than in the basic, brutal thermodynamics of global heating. All the excess energy pouring into our planet due to CO2 buildup has to go somewhere. It goes into hotter temperatures, which means - worsening heatwaves.
Hundreds perished in the PNW heatwave (which we should call Heatwave ExxonMobil) and it could have been far more. When I think about the "Big One" I'm thinking of a deadly fossil-fueled heat storm, not an earthquake. It is coming - THEY are coming. We just don't know when & where