This is Orwellian, corrupt and fascistic. Nadhim Zahawi the Education Secretary is trying to stop young climate strikers with threats against their parents.
See more about Nadhim Zahawi's fossi fuel funding and background in the fossil fuel industry here and the huge direct personal payments to him. The motivation for Zahawi's attempt to clamp down on young climate strikers is crystal clear, corruption. theguardian.com/environment/20…
At one point Nadhim Zahawi was receiving a personal salary of £30,000 a month from an oil company, whilst he was an MP.
"Nadhim Zahawi, the education secretary, said students concerned by climate change should consider careers in science and technology, and warned they risked incurring fines if they skipped classes to join protests" theguardian.com/education/2021…
These arguments used by Zahawi are intellectually dishonest and Orwellian. They have been addressed repeatedly by @GretaThunberg. We knew what the problem was over 30 years ago, and the only reason we have a climate crisis is because of government's refusal to take action.
Zahawi also claims.
'But it warns that “political issues and partisan political views, for example on social and economic reform” should be handled in line with existing legal duties on political impartiality in the classroom.'
The science says there must be massive systemic change to properly address the climate and ecological emergency. That is not political, that is based on fact and science. Zahawi's open denial of that scientific fact, is political.
Zahawi's plans for climate education are a type of political indoctrination, because they are about the government's approach to climate, not consistent with what the science says is necessary. gov.uk/government/new…
I suggest that it is Zahawi who needs education about the climate and ecological crisis, and the science behind it. Not the young climate activists, who seem far ahead of Zahawi. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
1) This is the fault of politicians and the media who for nearly 25 years have peddled the lie that it is possible to address the climate and ecological emergency, the sustainability crisis with business as usual. theguardian.com/environment/20…
2) In the early to mid-1990s, and prior to this, there was much acknowledgement, and open discussion that shifting to a sustainable society/economy, meant a transformation of our societies/economies. A no growth economy, a shift away from private cars, lower consumption etc.
3) I can't say exactly when the shift away from this narrative/dialogue occurred everywhere, but in the UK I remember it started when New Labour got into power and then UK Chancellor Gordon Brown, started to talk about sustainability being slow and steady economic growth.
Again @GretaThunberg has got the core essence of the problem right.
The need for drastic cuts to emissions immediately, are because of the failure of our governments to make incremental cuts, when there was time available and they knew they had do this.
There are lots of people stupidly attacking Greta (although she is only the messenger) or demanding how can we manage with less energy. It's as if these problems are caused by environmentalists, or those pointing to the science.
The only people to blame for the need for drastic and immediate cuts in emissions now are our governments, vested interests that blocked past emissions cuts. They could have made slow and incremental cuts, if they had started over 25 years ago.
1) I want to start this thread to prove why @GretaThunberg is correct and why people in power know exactly what they are doing. That they are not trying to address the climate and ecological crisis, but they are blocking action to address it, to maintain business as usual.
2) As I explained in this recent thread maintaining business as usual is mutually incompatible with addressing the climate and ecological, which requires whole system change. Business as usual is what is driving the crisis.
3) It's now more or less 50 years since world leaders first promised to address the ecological and sustainability crisis at the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. Read the report linked to in the page linked to below. un.org/en/conferences…
I'm starting to get the impression of COP26 as a contrived stitch up. Where world leaders get to present their inadequate action as fixing the problem. This really is dangerous stuff. You see I remember the 1992 Rio Earth Summit well. 🧵
After the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, political leaders, fossil fuel companies and general vested interest gave the impression the problem was fixed, that there was no need for people to turn to green politics, because mainstream politics had fixed the problem.
In the following years, in the 1990s, we had oil companies taking out big full page adverts in BBC Wildlife Magazine, National Geographic, etc, saying how they were switching their business model to renewables.
This really is an excellent article by @GeorgeMonbiot, which I can't praise enough.
This clarity is totally lacking in almost every other presentation of the climate crisis in the media. Most deliberately misdirect public. Very important 🧵
I really do despair when I read or hear most of the presentation about the climate crisis in the mainstream media because it tacitly implies we can avoid climate catastrophe without leaving fossil fuel reserves in the ground.
I am a firm believer in that to effectively solve a problem, especially one of this magnitude and seriousness, you have to understand the problem. This means being brutally honest about what the problem is and constantly re-evaluating your understanding of it.
Whilst we ponder what might come out of COP26, I think it's a good time to ponder what if anything was achieved by far the biggest international summit there has ever been, the 1992 Rio Earth Summit? un.org/en/conferences…
Sure, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, under which auspices the COP talks are held were signed at Rio 1992, but we're now on the 26th, and have so far got nowhere. Unfortunately it doesn't look like much is going to be achieved at this one.
Except for all the #blahblahblah and signing bits of paper, was anything achieved at Rio 1992, which sent things in a different direction? I'm really struggling to think of anything, so please help me by naming something?