1. The one benefit of Brexit was a new farm subsidy system, paying for public goods like ecological restoration. But now the government has frozen the new grants, while swiftly cutting off the old ones, leaving farmers high and dry. It's deeply unfair and highly destructive. 🧵 2. It will leave farmers who started investing in restoration out of pocket, and destroy their faith in the green transition. The sharpness of the transition will drive some to bankruptcy.

1. People are objecting to my lashing of academics and intellectuals in today's column. I understand this. Here’s my reasoning. I chose examples of topics that are endlessly circled by researchers with ever diminishing returns, while huge and existential questions are ignored.🧵 2. I see the obsession with the Bloomsbury Group etc as highfalutin celebrity culture. The effort and attention spent on it, in scholarship, publishing and reviews, seems to me to signal a deep sickness at the heart of intellectual endeavour. It has a name. Denial.

1. A few days ago, I wrote a thread about the pros and cons of staying on this platform and asked for your views. They were very helpful. As a result, I’ve decided to stop using X from January 20. Already I’m mostly posting now on BlueSky (@georgemonbiot.bsky.social) instead.🧵 2. I won’t delete this account, as I don’t want to lose the archive. But I won’t post anything here after then. Will you join me in setting January 20th (a significant date) for the Xodus?

1. Who really won the US election? The fossil fuel companies and other polluting industries. We scarcely heard about them during the election campaign, which is just how they like it. Almost everything we *did* hear about was a distraction from the real agenda. 🧵 2. Trump’s campaign was an economic war against the interests of almost everyone on Earth, on behalf of the planet’s most powerful and destructive industries. But it was dressed up, as always, as a culture war: a trick that has been used to great effect for more than a century.

1. Here are my thoughts on the pros and cons of staying on this platform.
Pro: We were here long before Musk took it over. We built this.
Con: He has used our creation to help elect a far-right autocrat, and build his own grim political career.
🧵 2. Pro: We should never cede any space, real or virtual, to the far right. Fascist trolls are trying to drive us out. Don't give them the satisfaction.
Con: Our presence could be used to legitimise a far-right hellsite.

1. My column on what happened, what comes next, and just how easy our fake democracies are to overthrow. + short thread on where our remaining hopes lie. theguardian.com/commentisfree/… 2. People seek to destroy what they feel excluded from. Centralised “democracies” exclude all but a rarefied circle from genuine power. Centralised democracy is a contradiction in terms.

1. Trump’s preposterous claim that a “savage Venezuelan prison gang” has “taken over Times Square” is a reminder that people like him actually know nothing about the world, because they never step out of their suites and chauffered cars, offices and private planes.🧵 2. The ruling class doesn’t do its own shopping, or wander around town, or use public transport, or walk into an ordinary café or bar, or join a queue or wait for anything.

This is an important issue, constantly misunderstood. So here's a short thread about "marginality" and capital.
1. Land that's "marginal" for agriculture is often central for wildlife - and for the people who live there. ....🧵

https://twitter.com/TheMorganics/status/1849212965985128552

2. There are not 6.4m ha of "marginal" land in the UK on which machinery can work. The “margin” is always in the eye of the beholder. But in this case it doesn’t actually exist.

1. Abuse and harassment are never acceptable. But this is not the first time I’ve seen an emphasis on abuse and harassment shielding bad science. This is a short thread on how it works.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/… 2. It happened with climate science deniers a lot. In the 2000s, they would claim to have received abuse and threats, and almost invariably get national news coverage. Sometimes they would produce no evidence of such threats. They were just taken at their word.

This story is one of the most disturbing I've ever covered. It's about how the views of a deeply weird ideological sect affected science, medicine and the media, with devastating impacts on patients. Please read and pass on. This horror has to stop. theguardian.com/commentisfree/… I see my own profession, the media, as being as culpable as any. How did we allow a bizarre sect, with a phenomenally cruel and brutal agenda, to set the prevailing view of this and other issues?
And it was right across the board: just about every major outlet in the UK.

When you dig into the hidden detail of the government's carbon capture and storage programme, the sheer scale of fiscal and environmental irresponsibility is hard to comprehend. We could be on the hook for £50 billion, with zero benefit. My column. 🧵 theguardian.com/commentisfree/… It turns out that Labour has simply copy and pasted Tory policy, without any modifications. But the purpose of Tory policy was to provide huge, ongoing and open-ended contracts for the fossil fuel industry, not to cut emissions.
It will *raise* greenhouse gas emissions.

1. Could we stop saying "natural gas"? It sounds almost wholesome, but it's one of the most potent drivers of climate breakdown. The term is
a. meaningless
b. fails to properly to distinguish it from other sources.
The obvious alternative is "fossil gas" or fossil methane".
🧵 2. Yes, I know the term was coined to provide a contrast with syn gas/town gas, but extracting gas from geological strata is neither more nor less “natural” than cooking it up. As Raymond Williams noted, “nature is perhaps the most complex word in the language”.

This is absolute madness. Carbon capture and storage has failed time and again. Labour has slashed reliable green programmes, to pour vast sums of our money into a complete crock. The only possible explanation is lobbying by fossil fuel companies.🧵 theguardian.com/environment/20… Here's the reality of carbon capture and storage, after 50 years of practice: a bonanza for oil companies, but useless as a mitigation measure. desmog.com/2023/09/25/fos…

1. A fortnight ago, I wrote about the scandal of our Internal Drainage Boards, which are supposed to stop flooding, but are unaccountable, self-serving, feudal bodies that do more harm than good. Now a disturbing email has landed in my inbox. 🧵theguardian.com/commentisfree/… 2. It was sent to the Internal Drainage Boards by Innes Thomson, head of the Association of Drainage Authorities, that supposedly oversees the IDBs. Here’s the text:

It's worth reminding people who opposed the C19 lockdowns in the UK how much worse things would have been without them. The NHS was overwhelmed, people were dying at horrendous rates. Lockdown came too late but, even so, saved many lives. 🧵theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/s… We could have done it another way, like Taiwan’s brilliant test, trace, quarantine, support system. Taiwan lost only 7 people to C19 in the first year of the pandemic, with no lockdowns. Just 7! But thanks to our useless government, none of the necessary measures were in place.

1. I’m sorry to return to this question, but I think it hints at everything that's wrong with our media and public conversations.
*When did you last hear a critique of capitalism on the BBC?*
A thread/ 2. This is the system that dominates every aspect of our lives. Yet it seems to be off-limits at the BBC, and almost all other media. Seldom mentioned, never investigated, never criticised and never even properly explained. The same goes for our dominant ideology: neoliberalism.

1. You might not have heard of it, but the system supposed to protect us in England and Wales from #floods is an absolute disgrace: a network of old boys' clubs completely unaccountable to the public. No wonder it fails so badly.
My column + thread.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/… 2. The Internal Drainage Boards model dates from the 13th Century, and remains feudal in character. They’re cabals of landowners, unaccountable to the public, beholden neither to government nor to local authorities, who tend to operate in their own interests.

1. Whenever I write about new fermentation technologies, that could greatly reduce the environmental impacts of our diets as well as the exploitation of animals, I run into the same set of objections. In this thread, I’ll take them one by one.🧵 2. A. “I don’t want to eat food from factories”.
Well that’s unfortunate, because almost everything you eat has passed through at least one factory before it reaches you. Even your fruit and veg are likely to have been through a grading and packing plant. Cont/

1. How and why did the racist riots happen, and what do they tell us about where we might be heading? This thread concerns one part of the answer, the formation of what the historian Arno Meyer called a “crisis stratum” of disillusioned young men. 🧵 2. He was writing about the rise of fascism 100 years ago, but there are some disturbing parallels. Of course, there are also some major differences: for example, we are not recovering from a devastating war. How has it happened without that catalyst?

There is no such thing as a migrant crime wave. It's a myth spread by racist agitators. 🧵 brennancenter.org/our-work/analy… In fact, immigration is consistently linked to decreases in violent and property crime:
antoniocasella.eu/nume/Adelman_2…

A shocking report about how big environmental NGOs have helped greenwash the most damaging of all food products - beef. They've collaborated with brutal conglomerates to spread disinformation. As I know to my cost, in taking on beef, you take on everyone. vox.com/future-perfect… These organisations need to take a long hard look at themselves:
@WWF
@nature_org
@EnvDefenseFund