Thread by @SteB777

1) This analysis of wealth distribution in the UK provides a very telling story as regards the climate and ecological crisis. What it shows is an increasing gap between rich and poor. It shows how much wealth is concentrated in a small minority.
theguardian.com/money/2022/jan…

2) The reason this analysis of wealth distribution is because individual carbon footprints are highly correlated with individual wealth, as this well know Oxfam graphic illustrates. It is a similar pattern with other consumption.

3) The reason it is important to understand all this is because a lot of analysis as regards say carbon emissions, tends to give averages for countries, as if all the people of individual countries have a similar carbon footprint.

4) In reality as this analysis of wealth distribution in the UK demonstrates, there is a massive gap between the richest and poorest, and by inference a massive difference in individual carbon emissions, even in a so called, rich developed country.

5) Watching a video of one of @KevinClimate's excellent presentations on the climate crisis. He gave one telling metric. That was if the richest 10% just reduced their emissions to that of the average European, it would reduce global carbon emissions by 30%.

6) This presentation by @jrockstrom at COP26 demonstrates another key metric. To keep within the carbon budget for 1.5C, the richest 1% need to reduce their emissions by a factor of 30. The poorest 50% could increase their emissions by a factor 3, to stay within the carbon budge.

7) I don't want to get too involved in specifics, but to just see the overall patterns, to get an understanding of the big picture. If you go too far into specific detail, you immediate lose sight of the big picture, not being able to see the wood for the trees.

8) I hardly created big picture thinking or holistic thinking. However, I have noticed when discussing or debating this with people, that many, indeed most, dive right into detail of one aspect of the whole system, and totally lose sight of the big picture.

9) In fact, I regard this as one of the huge problems of our present modern culture. This focus on detail, where hardly anyone has a grasp of the big picture. We mustn't ignore detail, accuracy etc. However, once you focus on it, you totally lose sight of the big picture.

10) To keep sight of the big picture, whilst also keeping track of the detail and accuracy, you need to use what in Buddhism is referred to as the Middle Way. Unfortunately, and this confuses people in our modern culture, we use the middle way in a very different context.

11) I will use upper and lower case acronyms for brevity, as above. In our modern culture, we tend to use mw to mean a compromise, a false balance between extremes, 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

12) Whereas in the Buddhist context MW thinking means not getting too bogged down in one extreme or the other. It does not mean a comprise between 2 extremes, but being aware, mindful, that there are 2 extremes.

13) This is not about Buddhism, it is about being able to see the big picture, the whole story of the climate and ecological crisis, and not just dwelling on one aspect of it. Another huge failing of our modern culture.

14) I'll give a simple example of this, what might be summarised as techno-optimism. This is people who see the fix to the climate and ecological crisis as being in technological fixes. I'm always getting pounced on by them, insisting I accept their techno-fixes for the problem.

15) If you point to other components of the climate and ecological crisis, such as the biodiversity crisis, which will not be fixed or addressed by these techo-fixes, they get flustered or angry, and falsely accuse you of being anti-technology.

16) No, it is not about being anti-technology, it is about seeing the whole crisis, the whole system holistically, seeing the big picture everything paints. This is the reason for my digression onto the 2 entirely difference concepts of Middle Way thinking.

17) I fully accept the use of technology is a big part of the overall solution to the problem. Just that if anyone thinks that technology alone will solve the crisis, then they have no overall grasp of the problem, a big picture view.

18) My whole argument is that this crisis can only be solved by massive system change, where we address the whole crisis in a joined up way. Not just one part of the problem, and then just hopefully think maybe we'll come up with something to fix the rest.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

19) In whole system terms it doesn't work like that. You can't just address one part of the whole, and then say, after that we will come to the rest of it, because everything is highly inter-linked and interdependent. This is why we need a whole system approach.

20) I will now try and bring back to my original point, and that is the unequal distribution of wealth, and therefore carbon emissions and consumption in our current societies. Back to the pattern in that analysis linked to in the first tweet. It's all about trends.

21) Using the UK as a proxy (other countries have different distribution of wealth, but the overall pattern is similar). We have the wealthiest getting far wealthier and more wealthy people. Remembering of course that wealth is highly correlated with consumption and emissions.

22) This is why we can't just fix the problem with a change to electric vehicles, to renewable energy etc. We see a firm trend of the wealth getting much wealthier, and there being more wealthy people. That means increasing consumption and emissions i.e. that part growing.

23) In other words, with the current system, we wouldn't be just replacing petrol and diesel cars, with electric vehicles. But the amount of those vehicles, their size and their power would also be growing.

24) Rich households tend to have more vehicles, bigger vehicles, more powerful vehicles and they tend to use them more and go further in them. Meaning a big expansion in the resources being extracted to build this growing amount of bigger and more powerful vehicles.

25) Self-evidently, simplistic techno-fixes, without changing the overall system will just lead to growing consumption of resources, and bigger impacts on natural systems. Not sustainable.

26) Unfortunately, it isn't just that the wealth of the wealthiest is rapidly growing, that the amount of rich people are growing, that this means more emissions, more consumption. Their power and control of our societies is also unfortunately growing.

27) Our societies are controlled by self-serving clique of people, the top 10%, the top 5%, the top 1%, the top 0.1%, the top 0.01%. The higher up the pecking order, the more power and control they have over us. The more they subvert our system to their own ends.

28) Every single organization in our societies, whether it be the media, businesses, NGOs, governments, education institutions and so on, are controlled by executives on salaries or wealthy people, much wealthier than even highly paid professionals.

29) Coming back to the presentations of the problems by @KevinClimate @jrockstrom along with @JKSteinberger @ProfSteveKeen @KateRaworth and far more - we see the biggest immediate reductions in emissions would be through massive reductions in extravagance, by the rich.

30) As their emissions, consumption, flying is much higher than the average person, let alone the poorest, we could massively cut emissions, simply by them cutting down on their extravagance. Yet there are no plans or policy for this at all. Why?

31) Well the answer is a bit bleeding obvious, I dealt with it in points 27) and 28). The top 1% and also the top 10% (just with less influence) control everything, and they have a vested interest in being able to spend their wealth and income freely.

32) Being as all the media, heads of academic institutes, governments, even NGOs are controlled by someone in the top 1% or just under, and they all have a common interest, they shut down any narrative, which looks at them cutting back on their extravagance.

33) In other words, despite all the evidence pointing to their extravagance, being the lowest hanging fruit that could make the biggest emissions cuts quickly, this is never even considered, because they control everything, and can shut down any society wide dialogue on this.

34) Instead, the agenda, the discussion, all the stuff aired by the media, government policy and proposals is about electric vehicles, renewables, other low carbon power, and Net (Not) Zero by 2050. Why? I'll come to that.

35) All the focus on these techno-fixes, is because the very rich can profit from it and get even richer, but best of all it distracts from their gross over-consumption and massive emissions. This is why I said they were self-serving, and they all have a common interest.

36) This top 1%, top 5%, top 10% will never allow it to be considered, that their massive extravagance should be curtailed, despite all the evidence that it needs to be massively curtailed to slash emissions, consumption etc.

37) I am not hating on the richest, scapegoating them, trying to whip up anger against them. I would much rather that for the common good, they saw the problem and chose to pull in their belts, and to reign in their extravagance, pursuit of more personal wealth.

38) Unfortunately, they seem to be true addicts. That isn't an analogy, they are actually behaving like drug and alcohol addicts. The more wealth they have, the more they become obsessed with getting even wealthier, without any regard for the consequences

39) The more wealth and power they have, the less tax they are willing to pay, the more control they want over our societies, and the more they try to distort the whole narrative with their control over the media.

40) Like with any addict, you are not doing them any favours by ignoring their addiction. We need to challenge them about their damaging addictions, and their selfish behaviour. Nothing I say is from an ideological perspective. It is purely about practical sustainability.

41) My approach is purely about effective problem solving. Looking at the big picture created by the evidence. Saying how could we considerably cut emissions quickly. What is the obstacle to fixing this problem.

42) The solutions are pretty self-evident, but those with all the wealth, all the control of our society, it's media, politics etc - want to shut down any discussion of this, because they are determined to carry on with their extravagant consumption and to look for techno-fixes.

43) All I'm trying to point to is the big picture. How we can started cutting back on emissions and consumption most effectively, and how we can overcome the obstacles creating this inertia in addressing the climate and ecological emergency. I have no other agenda

44) Honestly, I don't hate the rich, etc. It's just there's no room for that sort of addiction and extravagance on a finite planet with a population of nearly 8 billion people.

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

@threadreaderapp Please unroll?

I'm just apologising in advance for any typos, sloppiness etc. On New Years day I cracked one of my ribs by sneezing suddenly. Every time I've had a reflex sneeze or cough, it has made it even worse, and left me in agony. I've hardly had any sleep, because I can't lie down.