Thread by @SteB777

I want to provide some general commentary on COP30, climate action generally, and this latest assessment, saying we're on track for 2.6C warming by the end of the century. It is most useful, in illustrating that political talk of limiting warming to 1.5C with current policy, is rhetorical hogwash.

However, I do not find, these end of the century projections, very realistic. Firstly, because they are far too conservative and optimistic. But most importantly, because they fail to understand the dynamics, and engage in the fantasy, that our civilization will remain stable, just struggling a bit, in the face of this level of warming, and recklessness.

I have taken issue before. Repeatedly, optimists will claim there is no scientific evidence that the climate and ecological crisis could collapse our civilization. There's only no evidence, because there has never been a proper scientific study of the stability of our civilization, in the face of mounting climate catastrophe. Most threats have never been evaluated, or even thought of. Do I really need to reference the study, the supports what I say, because I have referenced it countless times.
theguardian.com/environment/20…
1/🧵

Projections of end of century warming, at totally unrealistic, because as a civilization, we will never get to the end of the century, if we stay on the business as usual, BaU, trajectory. Most likely, what would happen, is warming would increase. It and other ecological impacts, would be catastrophic to our societies, precipitating some sort of collapse, economic, financial and political, leading to rapid drop in emissions, as the economy as it is, ceases to exist.

When I say collapse, I am not saying what this will be, as it could take many forms, and I am not a clairvoyant. It may at one end of the spectrum, be a deep rot of BaU, making it impossible, and be a crumbling of our societies and economy.

Maybe people, governments could be shocked into seeing sense, and belatedly do what we should have done decades ago. But this would be difficult as organization falls to bits.

Or it could be a more spectacular and sudden collapse. I am not saying there are only 3 scenarios, as there are an almost infinite number of possible scenario.

However, the most unlikely scenario, is we just soldier on to 2.6C of warming, coping with the catastrophic changes this will create, continuing to burn fossil fuels.
2/

Therefore, for far more realistic scenarios, we need to focus on say, the next 25 years, rather than ridiculously imagining we can limp on with BaU, for the next 75 years. This is a far more realistic timeframe, for saying either we take radical action, to avert catastrophe, or our goose is cooked. That if we don't take radical action, now, it's very unlikely there's going to be any organized society/economy, taking action in 25 years time.

One of my main objections to fantasies about geoengineering, sucking gigantic quantities of carbon out of the atmosphere, is who is going to do and organize this. It sounds like an implausible script for a movie, and not how things happen in the real world.

I am telling you, that if we can't just transform our societies, and rapidly start reducing our emissions, then the odds of using organizing global geoengineering, is zero. That is what happens in movies, not in reality.
3/

Just think about this for a moment. Could you imagine, in medieval times, them organizing global geoengineering? Because that's the sort of system/society we're going to be left with, to implement these global techno-fixes.

This global civilization, where it is imagined, we'd organize this global techno-fix, has only existed in the most war period.

Yet already, look what the US has descended into. With the insane Trump regime plotting to stay in power forever, with an anti-vax, anti-science health secretary, and a deranged president, trying to destroy climate science.

Those thinking, maybe China will fix it. Really? They're obsessed with maintaining economic growth, to avert collapse.

In the UK, will Farage's, Reform, be putting in place, fanciful techno-fixes.
4/

There is only one realistic solution, and that is radical system change. Of course, the supposed realists, will tell me that the oligarchs and vested interests, would never allow that.

“There are now no non-radical futures. The choice is between immediate and profound social change or waiting a little longer for chaotic and violent social change. In 2023 the window for this choice is rapidly closing.” Professor Kevin Anderson @KevinClimate

People might think that I am unrealistic. But those who think we can carry on with BaU, without this inducing the most unpleasant type of radical change to our societies, are being far more unrealistic.

The route, that is likely to create the most unpleasant radical change to our societies, is trying to carry on with business as usual, what our current governments are doing.
bellacaledonia.org.uk/2023/04/18/no-…
5/

Finally, I will reference this study, which confirms what I have been saying for decades, that the reason there is no scientific evidence, for climate induced civilization collapse, is simply because there has never been any scientific study of it.

It's not me being unrealistic. I have repeatedly supported what I said with hard evidence. Where there are no studies to contradict what I say, just turning a blind eye, to the inconvenient truth, and absurd belief in techno-fixes, which are wholly unrealistic, wishful thinking.
pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn…
6/

@threadreaderapp unroll