"It is time for us to listen to the warnings of the scientists ..."
Boris Johnson Sept 21.
Presumably this means Boris Johnson agrees with the IPCC "Only rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases in this decade can prevent such climate breakdown" theguardian.com/world/2021/sep…
Listening to the scientists means listening to all the science, not selectively cherry picking the bits that coincide with your other agendas.
"We cannot solve the threats of human-induced climate change and loss of biodiversity in isolation. We either solve both or we solve neither."
The primary problem at the moment is that very few people, let along political leaders, even acknowledge the whole big picture the science paints. There is absolutely no current plan to act on that big picture the science paints.
In all of her speeches at climate and UN conferences, @GretaThunberg has repeatedly referenced how little of the carbon budget we have left to stay within 1.5C of warming i.e. the Paris target. None of the media will report what she says.
Yet Greta was only quoting the IPCC SR15, 2018 report, which says on current carbon emissions we have less than 8 years left of this carbon budget. The latest projection is carbon emissions will rise by 16% by 2030.
Self-evidently something doesn't add up. Politicians claim to be guided by the science, but are actually pursuing policy, which will allow the levels of warming alone to reach very dangerous levels, and this excludes other major ecological impacts. nytimes.com/2021/09/17/cli…
Once again, politicians in general, let alone our current political leaders have no plan at all to stem the massive global declines in biodiversity. They make token gestures that make no overall difference.
There is a massive reality gap between what politicians are promising to do, what their action will actually lead to, and what needs to be actually done to avert and climate and ecological catastrophe.
Overall, I characterise this as a complete failure to see the big picture i.e. to perceive what all of this actually means.
What politicians fail to do when they address the public is to consult actual experts as to what their proposals mean in reality.
There are very few experts, let alone other people who have even been looking at the whole big picture of what all of this means for us. Most expert just focus on one part of the overall problem, not the whole big picture.
This is an admission this problem is caused by Brexit.
"Ministers are poised to agree an extraordinary post-Brexit U-turn that would allow foreign lorry drivers back into the UK to stave off shortages threatening fuel and food supplies. theguardian.com/business/2021/…
Much of the other media are not mentioning Brexit, mention it in passing, allege it is due to the pandemic or other causes etc. If it is nothing to do with Brexit as claimed, then how will this U-turn have any effect at all?
The point I'm making is this and it's not about Brexit.
1) This government and especially the PM lie endlessly, and the media are failing to hold them to account.
2) The government refuse to take responsibility for any mistake, they just lie their way out of it.
Please listen to this very important explanation and spread it far and wide. @GeorgeMonbiot highlights the crucial obstacle to progress on addressing the climate crisis, and that is government reluctance to take any action which will alter business as usual. RT this
I want to add to what @GeorgeMonbiot says, by explaining why I always highlight the ecological part of the climate and ecological emergency, such as the biodiversity crisis, and it is not just because this is where my interest lies.
"We cannot solve the threats of human-induced climate change and loss of biodiversity in isolation. We either solve both or we solve neither."
2) I have a somewhat complex position on the population issue. I accept ecologically, that the human population is far higher than it really should be. However, I also take the position that practically and ethically, there is nothing that can be done at the moment about it.
3) Essentially, even with a successful birth control strategy, it would take well over 100 years to significantly reduce the population, and that would take a type of cooperation for the common good approach, which is not possible without major system change.
Hi @Guardian@guardianeco this is a straw man argument, there never was this battle of the generations your article implies. Yes, you might supposedly be reporting research, but you present it uncritically. It involves classic cherry-picking. theguardian.com/environment/20…
The conflict is between certain members of the older generation i.e. the powerful, very wealthy, heads of vested interests, the 1% or a lots less, who obstruct action to address the climate and ecological crisis, because it is contrary to their vested interest.
By their very nature, the extremely wealthy, the powerful, the very influential in terms of the positions they hold, are usually older. Usually someone is not in that position until at least into their late 30s and usually much older.
I want to try and define what I mean by "ecological ignorance".
It appears all arguments that we can carry on with business as usual, adapt to climate breakdown and merely use technology to overcome the climate crisis, are based on "ecological ignorance".
All arguments that the climate and ecological crisis, is not an actual crisis, and that we can carry on with business as usual, appear to have one thing in common - "profound ecological ignorance". Both the arguments, and those using them, appear to be ecologically ignorant.
What I mean by this is that those using these arguments, appear to have no knowledge at all of how ecosystems function and how they sustain us. They seem to be unaware that this knowledge even exists. It is in fact, the classic Dunning-Kruger Effect.
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.
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.