Post

https://x.com/SteB777/status/1207413124946702336

More from @SteB777

Stephen Barlow

@SteB777

Nov 23

https://x.com/SteB777/status/1992271771475608051

I want to make it clear, why I so often hark back to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. There is a very powerful reason for doing his. I hadn't just become environmentally aware then. In fact, I'd become environmentally aware over 20 years earlier, and was 32, starting an ecology degree as a mature student.

In other words, I had a very clear impression of the time and the lead up to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, because here, was the things I had passionately believed in for over 20 years, finally being addressed. It was a time of incredible optimism by the environmentally aware. Finally politicians were taking the ecological and climate crisis seriously, and were going to address the problem. Rather, it seemed that way at the time.
1/🧵

https://x.com/SteB777/status/1992271771475608051

I attended a seminar around the time I started university, a panel of leading scientists. The chair of the panel, Professor Alan Wellburn, then probably the leading expert on air pollution, opened by saying, now we know what the problem is, we can address it.

I was troubled by this, and had the temerity to stand up and challenge this narrative. I said most of this situation, was actually known at the time of the 1972 UN Environment Conference, and the only reason the 1992 Rio Earth Summit happened, was because in 1983, the UN was alarmed that no progress had been made on the agreed action plan, of the 1972 UN Environment conference, and they set up the Brundtland Commission.
un.org/en/conferences…
2/

Before, I go on, I want to make it clear what my real point is. THE BIG problem, is this sense of progress. So much so, that people, including those who should no better, insist that it is only recently, that humanity understood how serious the climate crisis is, and that somehow back in 1992, there was little understanding of our predicament. No one believes me, when I say people took the climate crisis, far more seriously than they take it now.

I have seen environmental journalists, state that until Al Gore's 2006 movie, An Inconvenient Truth, most of the public had never heard of the climate crisis. I have to pinch myself. It is possible that public awareness of the climate crisis, was greater in 1989, than it is now. Don't take my words for it.

"These authors presented findings from separately conducted national polls that showed that whereas in 1986 less than a half of respondents (between 39 and 45%) reported having heard or read anything about climate change, this proportion rose to around three-quarters (74%) of respondents by 1990."

That's right, by 1990, 74% of the public were aware of climate change, and public climate change denial, was almost unknown.
wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.100…
3/

Read 9 tweets

Stephen Barlow

@SteB777

Nov 22

"Cop30 delegates ‘far apart’ on phasing out fossil fuels and cutting carbon"

With hindsight, it is now clear that the most powerful countries in the world, have always been opposed to phasing out fossil fuels, even though it is tacit in the UNFCCC signed in 1992.

Essentially, the most powerful countries, have played a devious game, of pretending that they want to address the climate crisis, whilst always opposing the only realistic way of achieving this, the phasing out of fossil fuels. This has been the sticking point, for over 30 years.
theguardian.com/environment/20…
1/🧵

If you read the UNFCCC, it is very clear that it sees itself as a continuation of the 1989 Montreal Protocol, which phased out CFCs, leading to the depletion of the ozone layer. It is very clear about this, as it states it multiple times.

This makes it absolutely clear, that the tacit strategy was the phasing out of greenhouse gasses, causing anthropogenic climate change. This could only be realistically achieved by phasing out fossil fuel burning. However, the means of achieving this was kept open, to let this be settled with the COP talks. No one envisaged in 1992, that we would be on COP30, over 33 years later.

The whole purpose of separating climate change from the rest of the sustainability/ecological crisis, was for a quick agreement. It was never envisaged, that the crisis would only be seen as climate change, when this is only part of the much bigger ecological crisis, which would be far more difficult to address.
unfccc.int/files/essentia…
2/

Whilst all the major countries appeared to be behind drastically reducing emissions, it is now very clear with hindsight, that their hidden aim, was to continue the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels for as long as possible. I am well aware people will object to me saying this, but how much evidence do you need.

The primary sticking point is still, 33 years later, the phasing out of fossil fuels, after this was tacit in the original treaty, signed in 1992.

More fossil fuels/emissions, have been burned since 1992, than in the whole of human history, prior to 1992. You have got to be pretty deep in denial to refuse to acknowledge such strong evidence.
3/

Read 8 tweets

Stephen Barlow

@SteB777

Nov 14

"The fundamental problem is this: that most of the means of communication are owned or influenced by the very rich."

George Monbiot correctly identifies the fundamental fact, as to why we are not living in true democracies.

If you have a tiny, self-interested clique, that controls and manipulates all mass communication, they are effectively controlling the thinking and awareness of people. All very rich people have far more in common, than they have with 99% of humanity. George Soros has far more in common with Elon Musk, than both of them have with 99% of humanity.

As George points out, addressing the climate crisis is relatively straight forward. When Greta Thunberg was asked, early on in her school strike for climate, why didn't she become a climate scientist, and solve the climate crisis, she intelligently responded, that the solution to the climate crisis was known over 30 years ago.

The only reason the known solutions have not been applied, is because it is not in the vested and personal interests of the richest people in the world, to implement those solutions. They only want techno-fixes, which allows them to have their cake and eat it.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
1/4🧵

The top 1% of the richest, especially the top 0.1%, are super-emitters, who individually have greater emissions, than the bottom 66% of humanity. Therefore, they self-evidently have a personal vested interest, in not seeing personal emissions restricted.

That is obvious to anyone, not suffering billionaire brain syndrome, or billionaire sycophancy.

It follows, that as a demographic, the very rich, have got a common interest, in maintaining their high emissions lifestyles. In other words, that this demographic, effectively controls everything, in a manipulative way, the thinking and mass communication of 99% of humanity, who don't have their interests, it is a very dangerous and anti-democratic situation. By its very nature, no one in the bottom 99% has the personal emissions of someone in the top 1%.

The top 1%, has for this very reason, managed to convince most people, that it is humanity driving the climate crisis, not the top 1% (really the top 0.1%). Because they control all mass communication, and so what people think.
theguardian.com/environment/20…
2/4

I mentioned, billionaire sycophants. If I open any of these observations up, for anyone to comment, I will have a pile on from extreme right wing, mindless automaton's, brainwashed by billionaire propaganda, calling me a retard, a commie etc. They are just parroting what they are conditioned to say, and can't think for themselves. If I engage with any of them, they can't put up any sort of coherent argument. It's just a stream of clichés, false assertions, ad homs, logical fallacies and just plain nonsense.

I've repeatedly explained that I don't adhere to any ideology, communism or otherwise. My commentary is purely from the perspective, of long term sustainability, and our civilization, not heading towards collapse. There is simply no room for billionaires in world of 8 billion people, living on a finite planet, with finite resources. My commentary, is not derived from Marxism or communism.
3/4

Read 5 tweets

Stephen Barlow

@SteB777

Nov 14

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/

Read 7 tweets

Stephen Barlow

@SteB777

Nov 7

"Missing 1.5C climate target is a moral failure, UN chief tells Cop30 summit"

@antonioguterres is correct, but unfortunately the rest of the article descends into the same, empty rhetoric, which fails to recognize the real reason for the failure.

1/🧵theguardian.com/environment/20…

The core problem is very simple, all governments, including those making hopeful noises, are primarily focused on the pursuit of economic growth, which hopelessly compromises them, as this agenda is mired in fossil fuel use.
2/

I have previously described the Keeling Curve, the long term documentation of the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, as the knife of truth, which cuts through the hopelessly misleading rhetoric, about climate change progress.

3/keelingcurve.ucsd.edu

Read 23 tweets

Stephen Barlow

@SteB777

Nov 5

"David Lammy under pressure as two more prisoners mistakenly freed"

I'm somewhat puzzled about the way this is being reported, allowing serial conman Nigel Farage to make out this is just about criminal asylum seekers being released by accident.
1/🧵
theguardian.com/society/2025/n…

As this report makes clear, hundreds of prisoners, are accidentally released.

Nor is this new, there have been many cases like this for years.
2/
news.sky.com/story/how-many…

One of Britain's most notorious serial rapists (white), was released early, accidentally, and went on a spree of horrific offences.

3/news.sky.com/story/joseph-m…

Read 11 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Stephen Barlow

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @SteB777

Stephen Barlow

Stephen Barlow

Stephen Barlow

Stephen Barlow

Stephen Barlow

Stephen Barlow

Did Thread Reader help you today?

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

Send Email!