There is never NOT going to be a global crisis this century—repeated pandemics, wars over energy, and accelerating climate chaos is pretty much guaranteed in the next decades.

Global leaders must not use these crises as excuses. The world must phase out fossil fuels anyway.
Yes it's fiendishly hard. But we don't get this time over again.

At this point, the climate crisis *is* a short-term consideration.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr. Genevieve Guenther

Dr. Genevieve Guenther Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DoctorVive

Mar 20
Even if fossil energy has enabled all the development of the past 200 yrs—and even if safe energy is intermittent & cannot power some things we love, like flying—it STILL seems 100% worth it to me to have life on earth continue rather than end. I mean, come on!
I like steel skyscrapers and summer trips to Paris just like the next girl. Not sure they're worth dying for, tho.
The idea that the thing people working on climate CANNOT TOUCH is "our way of life" seems super weird to me.

Is this an existential crisis or not?
Read 5 tweets
Mar 18
Wow these two paragraphs together really give the game away.

The NYT really doesn't want to admit that racist speech is hate speech.

Instead they accuse progressives of making people of "good faith" uncomfortable for "challenging" people in ways they might find "offensive." Image
People should be allowed to be racists, damn it!

They should be allowed to "take take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues that society is still working through" without fearing "cancellation." Image
I wonder who defines "good faith" in these cases?

To me, someone acting in good faith would *welcome* being called out for inadvertent racist behavior and would not double down in ways that would require "cancellation."
Read 4 tweets
Mar 17
One of my least favorite forms of climate commentary is dunking on climate activists for being stupid and/or wrong about climate politics when the pundit, himself, is stupid and/or wrong about climate politics.

Take this @mattyglesias substack attacking Sunrise....

🧵
First of all, Yglesias accuses "the left" of believing that "there is a latent desire among the mass public...for sweeping climate-related change."

Seriously? Literally no-one believes that.

Did he not see Don't Look Up? Has he not read any climate comms scholarship?

2/n
One of the biggest challenges facing the world is the fact that the American electorate is only weakly committed to climate action, even as the number of people who are alarmed and concerned about the climate crisis continues to grow.

3/n
Read 16 tweets
Mar 15
Out today, a new piece: "Climate Communication in the Era of 'Blah Blah Blah'."

In a special Climate Change and Energy edition of @IA_Forum. Pg 21, here👇

ia-forum.org/Files/IFAUYO.p…

🧵
"We have left the decades of [science] doubt and denial behind, and we have entered the era of 'blah blah blah,' as Greta Thunberg so succinctly puts it.

Climate communication must evolve to adapt to this new era."

2/n
"First, it should seek to inspire the majority who are concerned and alarmed about the climate crisis to adopt the kind of committed, even revolutionary fervor that can lead people collectively to replace our current stakeholders with leaders who will transform our systems."

3/n
Read 17 tweets
Feb 12
At least two reasons serious people might be worried about human extinction (or even just mass death & depopulation to under 1 billion).

1) Folks may view NDCs and other pledges as greenwashing hiding continued financial and political support for the fossil-fuel system.

1/n
2) People may have less faith than scientists do that our technological capacity will enable us to transcend our dependence on this planet.

We ARE in a 6th extinction. Why would humans be spared if it continues to accelerate?

2/n
We cannot take extinction off the table until the emissions curve bends down.

3/n
Read 15 tweets
Jan 20
I would love to see proponents of using solar #Geoengineering, rather than complaining about cancel culture & calling for the protection of "science" from politics (I mean, lol), actually address the reasoned claims about geoengineering these scientists are making👇

🧵
First, they argue that "First, the risks of solar geoengineering are poorly understood and can never be fully known."

Is this not true?

2/x Image
Are proponents of using solar #Geoengineering claiming that the risks *can* be fully known, or that we should develop and deploy technologies to dim the sun without fully understanding the risks?

3/x
Read 16 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(