Thread by @SteB777

I entirely support the position of @ClimateHuman as spelled out in both his excellent article and thread here.

Essentially what I mean, is I support both his criticism of "net zero by 2050" being pursued by most governments, and the need for an emergency response.

https://twitter.com/ClimateHuman/status/1436367028244205569

This Net Zero by 2050 framing being pursued by governments around the world relies on promises action will be taken in the distant future, rather than now, and the invention of magical technology, which doesn't yet exist, and which might never exist.

Given we have known how to address the climate crisis for over 30 years, with simple mitigation i.e. just phasing out the burning and extraction of fossil fuels, it appears to be dangerous and irrational for us to rely magical technological fixes, that don't exist.

The best analogy I can think of, is that it is like asking a bank to loan you many millions of pounds, dollars or whatever, and promising you will pay back the loan in 30 years time, not with regular payments, but by winning the lottery on multiple occasions.

No bank on Earth would even consider such a proposal and they would laugh at you. However, in all seriousness, this is the deal our governments expect us to accept.

Of course, the public in general have no understanding of this. The climate and ecological emergency is very complex, and the media have not only failed to properly inform the public about the facts, but they have actively misled the public.

https://twitter.com/DoubleDownNews/status/1431192942350323718

Therefore, as far as the public in general are aware, our governments have a credible plan to address the climate and ecological emergency. That it is the only approach, the best plan.

There's no public knowledge, no open discussion in the media, that there is a far more reliable way of addressing the climate crisis, one not based on magical thinking and lottery winning odds.

This reliable plan is a similar approach to that used by the allies in the second world way, and that is to suspend the normal economy, and to work cooperatively towards the goal of addressing the crisis.

https://twitter.com/ClimateHuman/status/1436368601049538566

However, there are important differences between the WW2 analogy, it is not a war. In WW2 the intention was always to return to "normal" i.e. business as usual BaU. However, in this case, the aim would be to transition to a sustainable economy and society, with no return to BaU.

The current "Net Zero by 2050" is based on 2 clear unspoken tacit premises.

1) That we can take the word of politicians they will actually try to implement this plan.

2) That the technology they promise will work.

The difficulty with accepting plans based on promises, is you have no idea if they are genuine and feasible. There is a long history of fraudsters, conmen, selling fraudulently schemes, based on hollow promises, which never happen.

Our best guide to the future is the past. Fortunately, we have empirical evidence, to know what happens, when political leaders promise to address the climate and ecological emergency, because it already happened at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.
un.org/en/conferences…

The promise to address the sustainability crisis, the ecological crisis at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, was not actually the first. Governments first agreed to address this crisis at the 1972 UN Environment Conference.
un.org/en/conferences…

It all sounded very hopeful after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Unfortunately, in the aftermath, instead of taking action straight way, they promised action in 20-30 times i.e. now or 10 years ago. There was no action.

In fact, after promising to reduce carbon emissions at 1992 Rio Earth Summit, more emissions were produced in the next 30 years, than in the 250 years previous to this.
ieep.eu/news/more-than…

In other words, we already know what happens, when politicians promise to take action in 20-30 years time, because they have already done this twice. And they did nothing at all, carried on with business as usual and things got far worse.

Therefore, as this is what politicians have been doing for the last 50 years, why should we believe they mean it now?

After all, if governments really intend to take this action why not start now? Why wait 30 years?

My question is rhetorical, because we already know the answer, and that is they probably don't intend to take the action they promise, but we won't know this until 30 years time.

You see, if governments promised to drastically and rapidly reduce carbon emissions within the next decade, as the latest IPCC says is necessary to avoid the worst impacts, we'd know within 5 years if politicians were being truthful i.e. within their current term of office.

People would remember what they promised, and be able to judge them in the next elections. However, by making it 30 years, they will no longer be in office, they will be old or dead, and no one will remember what they promised.

I will say it again. As regards the climate and ecological crisis, if a political leader is not willing to take major action in their current term of office, they should be automatically disbelieved. We must treat what they say as a lie.

If political leaders are really intent on taking the necessary action, the why not take it now?
@GretaThunberg @GeorgeMonbiot @KevinClimate

@threadreaderapp Please unroll?