The only good thing to come out of COP26 is that at least we now know with absolute certainty that our current leadership/system is utterly incapable of meaningfully addressing the climate and ecological emergency.
What inspired me to write this scathing response is good people, experts, have wasted the best part of 30 years engaging with politicians who quite clearly don't want to do anything meaningful, and who are actually far more concerned about protecting the fossil fuel industry.
The fact that governments still provide this obscene level of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, 30 years after they were supposed to be reducing emissions, and by implication fossil fuel burning, says they're utterly disingenuous in their sentiment. theguardian.com/environment/20…
The fact that governments supposedly committed to addressing the climate crisis are still actively supporting the opening up of new fossil fuel reserves, when they know they should be leaving most known fossil fuel reserves in the ground, says that they are utterly disingenuous.
As I said here, it is now crystal clear that governments and politicians only took charge of these talks, not to address the climate and ecological crisis, but to ensure no proposed measures interfered with business as usual, or altered the status quo.
That's what these talks have really been about, to ensure nothing got in the way of the extravagant high carbon emission lifestyles of the rich or altered them. To keep below 1.5C the richest 1% need to reduce their emissions by a factor of 30.
Yet, not one proposal of these talks has ever been about the richest 1% reducing their massive carbon and consumption footprints, even though that is the only way to address this crisis. nature.com/articles/s4156…
I'm sorry if I've not been scathing enough, but I've run out of words and metaphors for how disgusting this process has been. How it has absorbed all the efforts of those who care and truly understand the seriousness of this situation, and nothing useful has been achieved.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"The only way the defenders of business as usual can be in a position of protecting BAU from reform, is to pretend be trying to address the climate and ecological emergency, and therefore put themselves in a position of control over what measures are considered and implemented."
It's in quotes, because I just wrote it in an email to someone.
This is what triggered me writing this, and it pretty much encapsulates what I've been trying to get across in my threads on Twitter i.e. the narrative. nature.com/articles/d4158…
1) What this is illustrates is how accurate my previous thread was about the primary obstacle to a realistic agreement to address the climate crisis is. It's just crude self-interest. Countries which can profit from fossil fuels don't want to give them up. independent.co.uk/climate-change…
2) Here's my other thread. Whilst it was focused on personal wealth and privilege, the ability to profit from fossil fuel extraction, ultimately comes down to the same thing. Individuals personally benefiting from what is driving the crisis.
3) Just think about the countries constantly obstructing progress. The most notorious is oil rich Saudi Arabia, then we have Australia with it's massive coal resources, Russia with it's oil and gas reserves, and the list goes on.
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.
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.
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.