I want to highlight and amplify, how current policymakers and governments, have simply chosen to give up on the climate, ecological and sustainability emergency, simply because it conflicts, with the economic and financial policy, they want to continue with.
1/🧵
If you look at the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment, the 1987 UN Brundtland report, Our Common Future and the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, based on this, all the present and future catastrophes were clearly foreseen over 50 years ago.
In other words, 51-31 years ago, governments and world leaders, recognized the potential catastrophic impacts, of economic growth and the system that had developed, based on this, and attempted to develop strategies, to prevent future crises.
I have placed links to the relevant UN webpages, which document, the events and reports I refer to. Unfortunately, I have no idea how these references and links will appear, due to Elon Musk's interference with how links are displayed.
Yet if you read the reports linked to on the webpages I've provided here, it becomes clear that the our governments have done nothing whatsoever to address these future catastrophes, and are just carrying on with business as usual, as if these crises do not exist.
6/
Yet if you read the reports linked to on the webpages I've provided here, it becomes clear that the our governments have done nothing whatsoever to address these future catastrophes, and are just carrying on with business as usual, as if these crises do not exist.
6/
Take just one part of this overall system crisis, the climate crisis. Present policymakers talk, as if they have addressed this crisis and it is not a future danger. But there is a massive gulf, between their rhetoric, and the reality.
7/
Professor Kevin Anderson @KevinClimate is one of the world's leading climate scientists, especially in the field of what sort of future emissions, and climate scenarios, our present policy is leading to. Please see his presentation here.
8/
What @KevinClimate demonstrates, is that current climate policy, is actually leading us to 3-4C of warming in the future i.e. by the end of the century, not Net Zero by 2050, or the 1.5C Paris Agreement Policy.
9/
In fact, @KevinClimate calls present Net Zero policy, Not Zero, simply because the policy framework, will deliver us nothing like Net Zero, Not Zero. It's a real The Emperor's Clothes type absurdity. The rhetoric, is detached from the reality, to a ridiculous extent.
10/
An analogy, is the Theranos, blood analyser fraud perpetrated by Elizabeth Holmes. She falsely claimed to have developed this incredible blood analysis machine and got massive investments, including from tech billionaires.
We now know, that this was all empty rhetoric. There was no magic blood analysis machine, it was just a fraud. Net Zero by 2050 is a fraud, in that mould, but on a much bigger scale, and is being perpetrated by our governments, policymakers and corporations.
12/
This gigantic global scam, is meant to mislead the public into believing that our governments have policy and the technology to prevent climate catastrophe. So they can just carry on with business as usual, and fossil fuels, without the consequences.
13/
There are amazing parallels with Elizabeth Holmes' fraud. She does appear to have set out to build this blood analyser, but when it was impossible, she just pretended to have achieved it, with fraud. This is exactly what our governments are doing with Net Zero policy.
14/
This has allowed climate crisis denier to credibly claim climate policy is fraudulent. But what they have got wrong, is claiming that climate change is a fraud. No anthropogenic climate change, the climate crisis is real, but it is the policy to address it which is the fraud.
15/
Our governments, our policymakers claim to have addressed the ecological, sustainability, and climate crisis, which the 1972 and 1992 UN Conferences dealt with. But they have not even addressed the basics, and the crises unfold without solutions. Only fraudulent solutions.
16/
@threadreaderapp Please unroll?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've been trying to frame a huge problem about the climate crisis, and I am struggling for the terms to frame it, and the whole concept.
The problem with most thinking about the climate crisis, is most of the policy and technology, is not real and founded in reality.
1/🧵
I was just trying to brush up, on @KevinClimate analysis, of carbon capture, NETs, geogengineering et al, in video presentations. However, the problem is we're talking about things which don't exist, and which might never exist, at the scale necessary.
2/
However, it is not just these technologies, but climate policy in general. Not just Net Zero, but most floated climate policy of the last 30+ years. It's all just hot air and talk, that has not lead to any real world falls in emissions.
3/
I want to expose the sheer stupidity of journalists who deny the climate crisis. In this case Peter Hitchens @ClarkeMicah who writes in the Mail. Here he makes a stupid mistake about another matter, that 2 minutes of basic research, should have found.
1/🧵
In this article for the Mail, about a so-called prison experiment on Ch4, Hitchens refers to the "The world's most famous prison experiment, the Milgram study in the US in 1961". No the Milgram experiment was not about prison.
Obviously, Peter Hitchens @ClarkeMicah was referring to the Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) led by Professor Philip Zimbardo, a whole 10 years after the Milgram experiment, led by Yale psychologist, Stanley Milgram.
This is clearly political, and this government is using state apparatus, for political reasons. Not only is this authoritarian, and what you'd expect in a police state, it is pure corruption, as politicians are not supposed to use state apparatus for political reasons.
2/
There is plenty of other evidence, that this Conservative regime, has since the very beginning, being using departmental news management, in an extreme and dishonest way, not seen under any other regime, prior to it.
3/
Since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, our leadership has peddled this lie, that they were committed to addressing the climate, ecological and sustainability crisis. Just not yet, but that they were going to do it, before it was too late.
I questioned this from the very beginning, when in 1992, in a post Earth Summit, seminar, a very senior scientist, said now we know what the problem is, we can address and solve it. I said, but that's what they said after 1972 UN Environment conference.
I've not read @NaomiAKlein's book, but I am very familiar with the whole phenomenon, or rather phenomena. There are essentially 3 components of this, and one overarching mechanism, making it possible.
1/🧵
First, there's the phenomenon of lots of people, believing the same thing, even if it is completely baseless and detached from reality. Believing it in a fervent way. It's what makes it different and more real to people, than crank individual beliefs. Massive reinforcement.
2/
Secondly, we live in a very uncertain world, and at some level, probably unconsciously, people are aware they are being gaslighted, by governments, by the media. They are looking for explanations to make sense of this, so fall prey to fake conspiracy theories.
3/
If anyone in any way disputes what I say, then here is the "UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION
ON CLIMATE CHANGE", signed in 1992 and framed in 1990s, which specifically refers to the Montreal Protocol (1987) multiple times. @KevinClimate
It is very clear, that the treaty, not only saw the Montreal Protocol (1987) as an exemplar, which phased out CFCs, but as a continuation of that treaty, as CFCs were a powerful greenhouse gas.
3/