Reminder: Just because no one is telling you that some governments plan decades ahead, and that today's decisions are climate-driven, doesn't mean it's not happening.
2/ Most seem to imagine a liberal future world order like ours—with state sovereignty, freedoms, human rights, international law etc., but somehow without fossil fuel use,—only in a 4-8°C warmer world? 🥳🤣? How on Earth does anyone still believe this?
3/ Leaders know billions will die. Some have known since the 1980s.
Think about what this means. Don't assume you or your children will be spared.
Read some history. Mike Davis, Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World versobooks.com/books/2311-lat…
4/ Some scientists think such scenarios are "exceedingly unlikely." More likely, they are naive or play naive, for whatever reason. When billions of lives are at stake, choose carefully whom you trust.
5/ People often ask me—OK, now what? What can we do? I tend to share information in response (learning is my bias). But a practical way is to marry learning with civil disobedience and direct action if you can.
@JustStop_Oil@InsulateLove@ClimateCrisisAG 6/ Putin may have launched the age of climate wars—we don't know. All we know is that WE are in a struggle for survival, against people who use the world's best technology and foresight analysis to ensure that they profit. I'd suggest we don't accept this.
Both a+b are true. Climate scientists don't get it. So we have a massive cognitive problem. It will 100% backfire if we don't prepare people for the truth that decarbonization = lower living standards.
@JustStop_Oil@InsulateLove@ClimateCrisisAG 9/ All this is public, peer-reviewed science, no surprise. Here a classic Senate hearing (watch it!—way better than most today) from 1985. We just happen to be around at the moment when the hammer drops. Let's catch it before it smashes us.
Many scientists say the opposite. Don't let it confuse you. Science is specialized and slow to accept new knowledge. Not much help against nonlinear change. It can tell you "it's too late" with 100% certainty but not how to prevent that.
@JustStop_Oil@InsulateLove@ClimateCrisisAG 16/ Scientists & engineers dig deep in their own fields, but few train to take a whole-of-system view. It's not incentivized & a mindbender, as you see in this thread alone. Check Donella Meadows & @bethsawin, queens of system thinking's, thoughts on this.
(b) "No economy with oil": the slow response of ocean & ice sheets to GHG forcing makes decarbonization the priority. Once we *see* change it's decades too late to address causes.
This defies law & legal system. Call to lawyers—we urgently need solutions.
@JustStop_Oil@InsulateLove@ClimateCrisisAG@bethsawin 18/ (a) "Energy is the economy": call to analysts & economists. Theory is lacking. *Even degrowth & ecological economics don't remotely suffice* in a climate perspective, sorry all. But here we have rapid feedbacks, so we can learn. Hence b>a. Let's learn:
@JustStop_Oil@InsulateLove@ClimateCrisisAG@bethsawin 20/ You activists, scientists MUST understand how your enemy thinks to have any chance—else they easily defeat you. They understand how you think: easy to read.
Study this stuff, respect & consult energy professionals. @CareyWKing's book as great intro.
Critical thought by scientists & investigators needed. Peter Wadhams is sharp but correct. Fatal systemic IPCC bias ("erring on the side of least drama") is well documented but rarely challenged. Especially methane.
@lasch2002 3/ For anyone who is new to these questions: they are so stressful because - in climate terms - there is a good chance that if we don't sort these out, almost nothing else we do really matters. And they are hard to sort.
Ukraine-Russia context: LTG 1972 and Copenhagen 2009, our final warnings, went unheeded. What options remain: (1) enforce degrowth & resilience; or (2) continued growth, collapse or extinction. Survivors form a degrowth or post-collapse world order. Do we have your attention? 1/?
2/ I don't know what needs to be repeated as this has all long been clear to anyone paying attention. As current policy is based on myths & wishful thinking, facing reality changes our mental models. People can only do this themselves, we can't force them.
If we ignore the views from outside the silo, we may create hope for us now - but will inevitably crash harder later. I appeal to common sense. Time to move beyond abstraction, to unlearn complex systems' 'necessary lies' (Kaminsky). Much depends on us getting it right this time.
PNS scholars and teachers like @SFuntowicz have been discussing it for three decades, challenging even the first Nordhaus papers, but climate science at large has not responded. This really matters. Time, my friends, is running out. sci-hub.ru/10.1080/030851…
IPCC author literally begging you to read the AR6. The summary for policymakers (SPM) doesn’t work for me, but the rest - 3000+ pages - looks tremendous. It is unlike any other report you’ve seen. If we fuck this up, there is no long-term future. So, dig in. Climate thread 1/?
2/ To start, good advice by @mich_koenig: the 2-page IPCC summary factsheets may help. The goal IMHO should be to bring this report into actionable form, for government or corporate decisionmaking. Change requires different *form* than academic papers.
3/ Disclaimer: welcome to the IPCC's contradictory model world. Economists (IAMs) expect a growing global economy even in future 4°C hell. Yet it is the basis of all current climate policy, so let's hop in. @climateinteract models help as dynamic intro. 🙏
~"We are starting to lose habitat for the human species," co-chair Hans-Otto Pörtner just *said* in the presser. I was gonna do a summary thread of the IPCC AR6 WG2 SPM, but the words "habitat loss" and "aerosols" don't even *appear in writing* so I don't know if it's worth it.
1/ Burning embers diagrams are turning into burning towers diagrams. Idk what such diagrams are to tell us; systems thinking clearly missing. Report introduces 127 (!?) "key risks" but doesn't prioritize. We have no baseline to adapt to. Good luck I guess.
2/ There is so much we can do. Maybe look for local ecologists, systems designers, and communicators. We can do so much better than this. Start with the oceans. If we don't get this shit under control, Ukraine is but a minor warm-up. SROCC @xr_cambridge:
Good paper. But Putin brings us to the brink of nuclear war and threatens Ukraine with flamethrowers that melt people from inside. IPCC AR6, tomorrow, will receive paltry coverage. And scientists are out there having the same old petty arguments, long since divorced from reality?
Mainstream scientists are in denial of existential climate risk. They retreated into a fantasy world of mathematical models in which they feel safe. A pathetic failure to warn society in the last few years in which we could still act.