People often ask what I mean by system change re: the climate and ecological crisis. It is very simple. I mean a full shift to a truly sustainable society/economy. This means changing more or less every convention of our modern society.
Sustainable means what it says. A society and economy in balance with the ecological carrying capacity of the Earth. Essentially that means no unsustainable trends, where our impact on the natural systems of the world is growing.
You see, in ecological terms, if there is a component, where it's impact on natural systems is constantly growing. Eventually it will have catastrophic effects, impacting also on the component driving it i.e. human society.
Lots of natural components have growing impacts. Let's say an exploding population of rodents. But this is eventually counteracted, by a sudden fall in the population of that rodent. Often, it produces a cycle or rise and fall.
Humans appear to have got out of this cycle and effect, by using innovation to get around what would cause that contraction in that growth. For instance, the use of fertilisers and pesticides.
But this is at the cost of destroying other ecosystem components and biodiversity, which in a long loop, will eventually have serious impacts on us, that we can't innovate our way out of.
There is no simple recipe for creating a sustainable society economy. However, if we don't want our population, our civilization, our society and economy to crash, it is essential.
Sometimes I think I'm the only person who can remember what was said and happened a few years ago. As I said in the post I linked to, I attended a seminar about the then recent 1992 Rio Earth Summit, just months after it.
The senior scientist who was the chair, and how wrote the standard text book at the time on air pollution and climate change, said "now we know what the problem is, we can solve it"
In the last 50+ years, mainstream politicians, obsessed with economic growth use the same dishonest trick to defeat taking action on the environment. They pledge to take action, and when they think everyone has forgotten about what they pledged, they renege on their pledges.
1/🧵
All climate activists/environmentalists need to be aware of this, because mainstream economic growth obsessed politicians, have consistently used the same deceitful dishonesty, over and again. I'm not aware of any political pledge on the environment, that has been honoured.
3/
There's almost a 100% record, of politicians and governments, never honouring their pledges on the environment. In every instance, politicians and governments, subsequently renege on pledges they make, on climate change, biodiversity loss, and environmental protection.
4/
The crucial issue is where, that is not a managed grouse moor, has there been an example, where culling Foxes and Crows, alone, resulted in a clear difference to Curlew breeding success?
I mean, it has been tried, so where has it worked?
At the very best @TonyJuniper is ecologically naive, and is being manipulated by grouse shooting interests, into believing that the breeding success of Curlews on grouse moors, can be replicated elsewhere, with predator control.
1/🧵
I have provided a comprehensive explanation as to why it is false and naive to believe that the breeding successes of Curlews and other ground nesting waders, on managed grouse moors, can be replicated elsewhere, for a number of factors.
Part of the reason, this can't be replicated, as I explain, is because upland grouse moors naturally support far lower numbers of Crows and Foxes, as sheep are generally excluded from them, and there would be very little to support, their populations all year round.
3/
Can I briefly explain the ecological thinking error, in this thinking. You say, there are too many crows, Foxes and Badgers. Well what are you going to do about it. The ecologically ignorant, say, well cull them, and there will be far less.
1/🧵
However, it doesn't work like this, populations of memo-predators like Foxes and Crows aren't determined by predation a.k.a. culling. Common sense reasoning has it, that if you kill ten thousand Crows or Foxes, then the population is going to be ten thousand less of them.
2/
The population density of say Foxes, isn't determined by how many get killed by humans. It is determined by territoriality and ecological carrying capacity. Most young Foxes don't live much past the first year, because they fail to establish a territory.
3/
The pollster who went to the Tory Press with these claims was a Tory Peer i.e. right wing. It is not clear who these Democracy Volunteers are, and what their political allegiances were.
However, it is clear that both this organization, was founded on the premise of "family voting" a conspiracy theory that Asian families coerce family members in how they vote, and Lord Hayward pushed the legislation.