Thread by @homemadeguitars

I would point out that slowing down and building renewables are not binary - it's not one or the other. There are two separate choices.
For instance, if any person in any government anywhere on Earth wanted to reduce their nation's emissions, they could do a speed limit now, and

2. Go ahead building the science fiction movie. At the same time.
Only one of those actions would reduce emissions now, the speed limit, but they're not in opposition as a binary choice.
Not one in the whole world.

3. Don't send me the reports, OK? These people demonstrably don't give a fuck about climate change.
Half of some silver bullet in another decade of business as usual "for the climate"?
You realize you're being conned. Lied to.
They are telling you out loud:
No change today.

4. And then they raise their eyes to the heavens and they say, "This is a red zone for humanity."
So we are going to increase our energy throughput to create jobs.
Whatever these things do in twenty years is not even relevant. We're dying down here today.

5. All these charts are out here, and everybody says, "But Professor Snotwhiffle says that they reach payback in three point zero nine seven years and he has computer printouts to prove it."
OK.
Splain dis

6. Now: if we *really* wanted to reduce emissions we would halt production of commodity industrial scale so-called renewables. Because that represents, right now today, a big number in gigatons.
That's why the big part, fossil, goes up. To make the renooble part.
I'm just saying

7. Besides land speed we would look for every place in our economies that we could reduce energy input / throughput without causing undue discomfort to society. Slow the flow of consumer crap.
Outlawing the production of plastic would be a great way. Reduce energy throughput.

8. As follows: the madness depicted below would not be possible without the plastic container, which is already on its way to the ocean, and it's downhill all the way.

https://twitter.com/NYinLA2121/status/1430986660280291330?s=19

9. I am talking about real actions, actions that are really necessary if we want to stop all the horrible news articles, and the President of the United States is talking about building charging stations for electric cars that haven't been built yet and all of it built by ⛽✈️🚢

10. I listen (audio only) to 2 news programs a day, @NicolleDWallace and @maddow, and read some Twitter, and work outside several hours, and that's all the news I get.

11. It is my understanding that people - my team, Democrats, climate aware people - are referring to the specific programs in terms of doing something which will result in saving this precious planet t'blahblah.
Live in the real world. We know what used to take out the carbon.

12. We broke it. We're breaking it more every day. All the extinct species still exist, but now they exist as carbon in the air.
It won't work.
It makes me scream to listen to an intelligent person like either of these women, Rachel or Nicolle, talk like something is being done

13. The climate doesn't do arithmetic, and it doesn't make loans.
You can't add a ton of carbon over here and take out a thimbleful over there and make it be for the climate.
Especially when the thimbleful doesn't start for 20 years.

This is the real world.

15. We know how to reduce energy throughput now with resulting emissions reductions now without starving or killing anybody now, and we're killing people now with the crap coming out of our tailpipes, tires, and brake pads - and so forth - we know how. It's not a fairytale.

16. The whole developed world is living a fairytale life in a biological finite complex rapidly degrading ecosystem. This meeting in Scotland?
They won't be inviting me to speak.
Technology salesmen and science fiction dreamers. Every one of them science deniers.

17. We're doing this for the climate. On purpose. We can track every pound of this CO2 back to an action we took on purpose, never admitting that we had jumped onto a self-regulating, permanently accelerating treadmill.
Look around you. Pieces are falling off.

18. It won't go any faster. Somebody needs to find the decelerate switch, and push it, and we see if we're smart enough to get it slowed down to where Earth starts to heal, and then we help her, where she is, how she is, on her terms.

19. I know it sounds crazy, but physically slowing down is a necessary first step if we want to reduce emissions. There is almost no technological or scientific dispute. Emissions are a product of the energy we use.

20. Energy is expressed in moving or transforming materials. The farther you transform or move it the more energy you consume / throughput. The faster you move it the more energy per unit of time, the more power. That's what we refer to as power: work times speed.

21. The entire public conversation is based on the assumption that speed / rate of energy throughput must not reduce, because we have a word for that event, and that word is recession, which is bad bad bad in a GDP growth economy.
So that's gotta end. The GDP growth thing. Broken

22. So since the rate of energy throughput must not reduce, the entire conversation is based on allegedly carbon free energy to power the necessary, by then larger (because growth=increase) energy source side of the energy flow. And allegedly carbon free sources of fast motion.

23. Yes, there is a lot of lip service paid to reducing energy demand *of course we meant that all along* after we build the carbon free energy sources, which will be carbon free in the future, but for now we have to melt all that sand and iron, we have to crush all that rock

24. and heat it, and set its carbon free into the atmosphere to absorb energy and seek to be alive, but we'll have to kill the life to plant our horrible machines across the face of the once-living Earth.
For the climate.

Your particular band is your part of the whole. In most cases it's roughly proportional to your heavy industry production, except in the US where we manage to piss away vast amounts of energy just running from place to place, and don't produce all that much big stuff.

Here's how we do it, in another breakdown. By activity.
The answer to this question is not alternative energy, it is an alternative relationship with energy and speed, as well as with the planetary ecosystems within which we evolved.
We can't get out if it. We're Earth. Science.

Those greenhouse gas slopes can be tracked back to activity. We need to pick the low hanging fruit first. Start by slowing. Look for ways to reduce energy use, at every level, every day. In all cases, without exception, to accelerate a process is to add energy to it, and vice vrs

28. It just makes me crazy. By any possible scientific measure, making even one more renewable energy device will make tomorrow worse, in emissions, than it would have been without it.
The same can be said of any other process which ran on high energy. Which ones can we reduce?

29. Or do we just continue to increase and lie about it.
Honey, I don't know whose underwear those are or how they got in my car.
I did it for the climate!
Makes my head ache.
Later. Donks hungry.