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.
Supposedly the free press and the free media are there to hold the government to account if they lie or misinform the public. Instead, the media act in complicity with the government, smearing opposition MPs, activists etc, and covering up government dishonesty.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) We need to talk about and define what we mean by "climate solutions" if the term is not to be yet more meaningless greenwash, so the public are not seriously misled by the efficacy of what is being done or suggested.
Long thread.
2) Broadly there seems to be two entirely different and mutually incompatible approaches to addressing the climate and ecological crisis.
I) Adapting the present system to supposedly make it sustainable.
II) Changing the whole system, and creating a sustainable system.
3) It would seem that the former approach is primaily motivated by a wish to maintain the current economic model/system i.e. business as usual, the status quo, or whatever you want to call it, not because this approach has been thought through or is at all feasible.
"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."
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.