Thread by @SteB777

1) I want to try and help to define the obstacle that is effectively stopping us successfully addressing the climate and ecological crisis and avoiding unnecessary catastrophe.

I'm not trying to dictate my ideas, but to start constructive dialogue.

2) I've been observing supposed attempts to address the ecological/sustainability crisis for the last 50 years. I have seen our leaders promise action to address this crisis, and then fail to deliver the necessary action to turn things around.

3) As we now have 50 years empirical evidence, we can now be absolutely certain what the actual obstacle to progress is.

This obstacle is to actually address this crisis, we have to fundamentally change the current system. Yet our leaders don't want to change this system.

4) What I am saying is that our leadership will only consider options which essentially allow us to continue with business as usual, and to maintain the current status quo i.e. the wealth of the wealthiest, and the way their wealth accumulates.

5) I am absolutely certain if our leaders could address this crisis and maintain business as usual and the present status quo, there would be no problem agreeing on a plan to address this crisis.

6) The facts Professor Johan Rockstrom @jrockstrom presented at COP26 for staying within the carbon budget for less than 1.5C of warming i.e. the Paris target, explain it here. It must include the richest 10% reducing their emissions by a factor of 30.

7) This is the sticking point, the obstacle. Necessarily, the richest 10% reducing their emissions by a factor of 30 in the next few years, would mean a profound change to our system.

8) We currently have a system that not only allows a small minority to accumulate massive wealth, but which then allows them to extravagantly spend this wealth, which generates massive carbon emissions from a very small demographic.

9) In fact the richest 1% generate more emissions than the poorest 50%.
news.sky.com/story/wealthie…

10) The problem and the obstacle is very simple. Everyone in a decision making position, involved in the negotiations at COP26, virtually all politicians, all senior bureaucrats, most senior academics, senior members of NGOs etc, are all in that richest 10%.

11) In other words, to meet the Paris targets would mean all powerful and influential people making massive changes to their lifestyles, to create a 30 fold reduction in their emissions in the next few years.

12) Most average people even in the rich developed countries would only have to make modest changes to their lifestyles, and the poorest could actually improve their lifestyles. This is what the raw facts say.

13) What we must remember is there is a huge difference in that top 10% in terms of wealth and emissions. It includes all the billionaires, and yet the bottom tier of that 10% are professionals etc, on much more modest salaries.

14) In other words, for that 10% richest demographic to reduce their overall emissions by a factor of 30, the richest billionaires would have to reduce their emissions by thousands of times, and those just in it, far less than 30 times.

15) Yet we live in a system where generally the more wealth someone has, and a much higher carbon footprint, the more powerful and influential that person is. Likewise, the less wealth/emissions an individual has, the less influence they have.

16) Therefore, purely out of self-interest, those with the most wealth, influence and emissions, do not want to make these massive changes to their lifestyle, that the evidence says is necessary, to keep within the Paris 1.5C target.

17) This makes the obstacle to coming to an agreement able to keep us within 1.5C of warming, the Paris target, crystal clear. All those involved in these negotiations, and the powerful players with influence, need to make massive changes to their personal lifestyles.

18) It is this reason they are so obsessed with maintaining business as usual, maintaining the status quo. It is not exactly rocket science working out what the obstacle is. It is just the crude self-interest of a small minority of the public. But a hugely powerful minority.

19) A minority, which can say we are not even going to consider this option, and because they are in charge of everything, and I mean literally everything, they can just block this action from even being mentioned, let alone considered.

20) Whilst @jrockstrom mentioned this 30 fold decrease in emissions of the 10% of the richest people very dryly in his presentation, I have seen no other mention of this at all. Not one peep about it in the media.

21) So why isn't this massive elephant in the room being acknowledged or reported? Guess what, all senior journalists, all media executives, all politicians, all senior NGO members, all senior bureaucrats, are in this 10%.

22) This whole demographic have got a huge vested and common interest in not mentioning this at all, and not giving the public a whiff of this at all. It's like it is the highest state secret. They won't let the cat out of the bag.

23) In fact, much of the media, many media commentators peddle the outright lie that addressing the climate crisis would mean the poorest, the least well off bearing the brunt. That the rich would be the least effected.

24) Yet this clear and simple Oxfam graphic, neatly illustrates that even if the least well off in society, made drastic cuts to their personal emissions, it would make relatively little difference unless the richest 10% made absolutely massive reductions in their emissions.

25) In @KevinClimate's presentations, he has mentioned how if the richest 10% just cut their emissions to that of the average European, not the average Ghanaian, that alone would cut global emissions by 30%.

26) See this Oxfam report from a few days ago.

"Carbon emissions of richest 1% set to be 30 times the 1.5°C limit in 2030 ... Footprints of poorest 50 percent set to remain well below this limit".
oxfam.org/en/press-relea…

27) Self-evidently, I am not making any of this up. My references are impeccable.

So the big questions is why don't you see this all clearly laid out in the media, discussed and acknowledged by our politicians, or even most NGOs. Because they are in that 10% of the richest.

28) Just imagine how differently the public would see this issue if they realised that actually it is the richest in society who need to make massive cuts to their carbon emissions, and ordinary people not much, or at all?

29) The powers that be want the public, the majority of the public even in well off countries, to believe they will bear the brunt of cuts to lifestyles. They want the majority to think this, to stop them seeing where the real cuts to emissions need to be made.

30) I know once again I will be accused of blaming the rich, blaming politicians, blaming the media, and not being tough on the greedy public who don't want to change their lifestyles. But look at the facts. I'm just outlining who can make a real difference, if they wanted.

31) The lion's share of these carbon emissions come from a small proportion of the wealthiest people in our societies. The less well off making big cuts won't make much difference, without the rich making massively bigger cuts to their emissions.

32) It is my contention that the major obstacle to reducing global emissions, is much, much simpler than people think. That this minority who have a vested and common interest in not changing their lifestyles are blocking action to address the crisis by abusing their positions.

33) This is why the powerful, the influential just want to talk about techo-fixes. They dream of finding a magical techno-solution, that means they won't have to make this massive 30 fold reduction in their emissions.

34) Also if they keep banging on about techno-solutions, they hope the public won't realise what the actual problem is, or what the actual solutions need to be.

35) Finally, I am fed up with people just disputing this, without acknowledging any of the facts I've presented, presenting evidence, and just making false assertions. I'm more than willing to engage with those who have reasoned arguments with evidence, but not just assertions.

@GretaThunberg @KevinClimate @GeorgeMonbiot @JKSteinberger @KateRaworth @ProfSteveKeen @ClimateHuman @ClimateBen

@threadreaderapp Please unroll?