Current climate research and policy remain shallow and caught in optimist groupthink at every layer. What we should be asking: will we go to war to decarbonize other countries? Urgent, entirely open questions that international law is unprepared to answer.
We've been warning for years that current climate policy is naive as it doesn't reflect thermodynamic and political constraints, and doesn't take its own warning seriously. Extremely glad @MuellerTadzio is writing a book about peaceful sabotage: #friedlichesabotage
Some have been asking these questions, but at the risk of their own reputations and resources: @RoyScranton@scholarswarning etc. Our institutions lack the expertise in science, engineering, and humanities to prepare for what's ahead. newrepublic.com/article/157160…
Without adequate mental models to manage complexity, we keep Groping in the Dark: Meadows et al 1982 pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/1829…
This is no normative argument, but purely descriptive. There will be coercion and conflict in many forms in the coming decades. The question is whether we can cooperate and mitigate.
Calling IR scholars. Some are waking up, but it's far too little too late; scale & scope of irreversible changes underway are still wildly underestimated by most. Change requires understanding the basic dynamics of the climate system - which we don't yet.
Returning to the original question: even here, optimist bias. Pacific Island States are right to worry, and asymmetric conflict and gray zone tactics, incl. cyber etc., will be used by many state and non-state actors. But the big climate risk is elsewhere.
End of thread - so now what? Is this so simple—or complex—that no one familiar with climate, energy, and geopolitics feels they need to even mention it in public, although doing so is critically important for meaningful debate to start? @CarloMasala1@Sicherheitspod et many more
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Fundamentally, the economists have totally misrepresented the science and ignored it where it contradicts their bias that climate change is not a big deal because, in their opinion, capitalism can handle anything," —incredibly important warning by @ProfSteveKeen
“the repercussions of climate change were foretold in the 1972 publication “The Limits to Growth” — a divisive report on the destructive consequences of global expansion — but economists then and since failed to heed its warnings, preferring instead to rely on market mechanisms.”
“I think we should throw the economists completely out of this discussion and sit the politicians down with the scientists and say these are the potential outcomes of that much of a change to the biosphere; we are toying with forces far in excess of ones we can actually address,”
Why this matters: Economics evolved for a growth regime, not for a full world, that approaches biophysical limits to growth. To share + accentuate @KevinClimate's concern: Do the physical climate sciences reflect & address the limitations of economics yet?
Can we learn to use economics in better, more humane ways?
This questions goes beyond natural sciences & engineering: many social scientists, & scholars in the humanities, routinely use sophisticated quantitative & qualitative toolboxes. Let's use them where it matters 🙏
and love this writing. Whoever said academic writing must be boring. Ocean acidification vs. Plastic pollution — the battle is still David vs. Goliath, but this dramatically improves the odds... /#Plasticene
The feedback structures in high-order nonlinear feedback systems persistently draw attention away from high-leverage points (social change), towards low-leverage points (technology, consumption).
We need to learn to distinguish symptoms (greenhouse gas emissions) from causes (structures that generate activities causing direct or embodied GHG emissions). Yet most sustainability and climate science focuses on symptoms that cannot possibly solve deeper structural problems.
just a quick reminder to whomsoeverhereontwitter it concerns that when we call out <deep structural systemic problems that currently have no solutions> that may sound like 'giving up' to y'all (but just because you read shallowly); I never say that, it's lit a problem of language
These never get old. “crucial to remember that humanity still has great sway over how much we disrupt the climate in the coming decades.” —the problem here isn’t researchers’ <climate models>, which are very sophisticated, but their simplistic ideas of <society>, & how it changes
No one seems to care: in the sense of, the metrics of this paper don’t seem to be skyrocket quite yet. Internet, do your thing. This is relevant enough, our future & SDGs after all 🙏🥳cambridge.org/core/journals/… /@SaraSchurmann@gri_mm :)