Thread by @SteB777

When I say addressing the climate and ecological crisis, was much bigger, and more discussed, in the 1990s, 1980s, or even 1990s, I am repeatedly, falsely accused of misremembering.

Here's I want to prove, why I am not misremembering.

1/🧵 brookings.edu/articles/tony-…

Here was Tony Blair roasting the Americans on needing to do more to address the climate crisis in 1997, as UK PM. Blair made many grandstanding public speeches on the climate crisis. Here, randomly, is one from 20 years ago in 2004.

2/theguardian.com/politics/2004/…

Somewhat oddly, Blair hardly ever mentions the climate crisis now, even though the impacts are becoming much bigger. He advises the Starmer government, which condemns climate activists, and which oversaw some being jailed for up to 5 years.

3/

https://x.com/ScientistsX/status/1836740725716721853

We do to think about why Blair used to be very loud on the climate crisis, but has gone silent, when it is actually unfolding. Although I can sum it up in one word, neoliberalism, and how addressing the climate and ecological crisis, would get in the way of economic growth.
4/

However, for the moment, I want to focus on how in the 1990s, or even late 1990s, this was headline stuff.

The 1992 Rio Earth Summit, was by far the biggest international summit there has ever been, getting massive global coverage.

5/un.org/en/conferences…

All this is totally contrary, to the false narrative, outright gaslighting, that somehow, the climate crisis, has only been widely understood recently, and that's why there has not been any major action on it yet.

This is complete and utter bullshit.
6/

Here's Margaret Thatcher's speech to the UN General Assembly, in 1989, which got massive coverage at the time.

There are complex reasons for why world leaders spoke very loudly about the dangers of the climate crisis 30+ years ago, and downplay it now.

7/

Unfortunately, it has to involve a lot of speculation, because these world leaders, many, although not all of them alive now, have never explained their change of tune, same with the media.
8/

Personally, I think it was because these neoliberal politicians, not being environmentally informed, naively believed it would be possible to address the climate crisis, without major system change and business as usual.
9/

Personally, I was very surprised, when world leaders at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, so readily agreed, to what was really quite a radical agenda. I was surprised because it would necessarily entail major system change to implement it.
10/

I think the politicians, simply never understood this at the time, remembering, none of them were, or are now, at all well-informed about the climate and ecological emergency.

This is why in 1992, I tried to warn people about the dangers of the politicians reneging.
11/

You see, I knew that when politicians realized, what they'd have to do, to address the pledges they signed up to, it could go in one of 2 directions. They'd either have to renege, or abandon growth economics and neoliberalism.
12/

So they've chosen the gaslighting, and Orwellian re-invention of history route, along with Not Zero, fake Net Zero policy i.e. pretending to take action, whilst doing nothing, which will make a real difference to our catastrophic route. @KevinClimate

13/sgr.org.uk/resources/turn…

However, the main thing is, I am not misremembering anything.

This is clear, incontrovertible evidence of just how easy it is, for the corporate media, and our politicians to gaslight, our societies.
14/

PS. If anyone is interested, this is proof of just how high public concern about the climate crisis, was in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But how that concern dropped, when politicians, falsely claimed they'd got a plan to address climate change.

15/ wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.100…

@threadreaderapp unroll