I am well aware that some might consider this as a bit extreme. However, I'm not saying it works exactly like this, but we need some way of understanding how despite all the time and evidence, our so called leaders still refuse to do the right thing.
The latest UN report lays bare the incredible vacuity and dishonesty of the Net Zero by 2050 policy, which is actually putting us on course for 2.7C of warming, nearly double the Paris 1.5C target. theguardian.com/environment/20…
There is nothing wrong with aspiring to Net Zero in the next 30 years - with 2 big provisos.
1) This has to be actual Net Zero, not fraudulent not net zero.
2) We need rapid and drastic reductions in GHG emissions within the next 10 years to stay on course for the Paris target.
The governments of the world have now had 30 years to sort this out. Instead the most they have come up with is a fraudulent not net zero by 2050 plan, with false accounting, to mislead the public into thinking they have taken action.
The supposed purpose of governments is that they are there to protect the public. Self-evidently they have failed to do this, and are still failing to do this. This suggests our governments do not have the ability to take the necessary action.
As far as I can see, the only obvious reason for this is that our governments are not really in control like they claim to be, and that powerful vested interests have such a strong influence over our governments, that our governments are unable to take the necessary action.
What other explanation is there?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Further to my point about this, and it is really crucial for understanding the climate and ecological emergency we are in, and the failure of our system to change direction, is what Kuhn says about paradigm shifts and the structure of scientific revolutions.🧵
Thomas Kuhn says science textbooks give the false impression that science is a slow accumulation of knowledge and so the new big picture science portrays, the new paradigm is consistent with past understandings of science. Kuhn says this is not the case.
Kuhn says each time there is a major paradigm shift, that the new paradigm is often incommensurate with previous scientific views of the world. That it creates an entirely different view of the world we live in.
Nothing better illustrates the fallacious government thinking over the climate and ecological crisis. How not only Boris Johnson, but other world leaders, treat it like a PR crisis, and not the actual crisis it is. theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/o…
Only yesterday the latest UN report warned us that on current government plans around the world, we are on course for 2.7C of warming, nearly twice the below 1.5C of warming target of the Paris agreement. theguardian.com/environment/20…
It is very difficult to know what is going on here, other than our political and business leaders seem to be detached from reality and appear to believe that this crisis can be addressed with propaganda and spin.
Let me briefly explain the fallacious thinking and misinterpretation of what I said. I have never said we shouldn't have or use ideas. Only that seeing ideas as the ultimate reference is wrong.
What the map-territory relationship teaches us, is that even the very best ideas are partly mistaken and never the same as reality. So like maps, ideas are at best a guide to the world, we should always take with a pinch of salt. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80…
As any walker or hiker knows, maps are absolutely valuable for navigation. However, any experienced walker also knows you must never totally rely on the map. A map cannot tell you where there is a waterlogged piece of boggy ground where you will sink up to your waist.
1) What if, and I propose this in all seriousness, our so called leaders cannot take adequate action to address the climate and ecological emergency - because they are not in charge of our system in the way we are led to believe?🧵
It is assumed that Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin et al, could if they wanted order adequate action to address the climate and ecological emergency.
What if they don't actually have this ability?
3) What I'm getting at is they might just be figureheads, the public face of a system, really controlled by many vested interests, with no one individual really being in control. Just a cabal of vested interests making huge wealth by destroying the Earth's life support systems.
Is Michael Mann in denial about the biodiversity crisis and the general ecological crisis? This is because it is now the second time he has blocked me for simply raising a point about it. Below are screen grabs of the exchange so it can be seen he blocked me for no valid reason.
Here is my very clear question which Michael Mann responded to. Note how I was only asking a very specific studies modelling biodiversity and ecological impacts. So Michael Mann's tweet response to me made no sense, because it wasn't about this.
I made 2 responses to Michael Mann, which I will post alone on the tweet below to make them easier to read. This is just to prove I am not leaving anything out.
When I say "we need to have a serious discussion", I mean to open up dialogue. Because this crisis, and the catastrophe it will cause if we don't address it, can only be solved by many minds coming together for the common good.
I have my own ideas. I have been working on this for the last 50 years to understand the situation we are in. But everyone needs to beware of any one person telling them how things are. This is what has got us into this mess, the false idea some great leader knows best.
The solution has to be us - the people - the solutions have to emerge from many minds coming together, with all minds solely focused on creating a sustainable society, and not on how to maintain business as usual.