I realise this will be an unpopular opinion, but what’s the hidden agenda behind providing easy drinking water for millions of Africans?

Follow me on a journey of discovery.. (25 tweet thread - sit down & read). I mean, providing people with a better standard of living, lifting people out of poverty must be a good thing, right?
“UN Report Calls for “SDG Push” to Lift Millions of Africans out of Poverty”
.sdg.iisd.org/news/un-report…

A clearcut site located near the Meherrin River in North Carolina which devastated an area of mature wetland forest, as well as nearly 100 acres of surrounding natural forest. Investigators tracked whole trees from the cut directly to the Enviva Southampton facility in Virginia. An environmental disaster is underway across the southeastern United States as trees are cut down from forests and turned into millions of tons of wood pellets to be exported and burned as fuel in European power plants.

By 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out solar panels—much of it nonrecyclable—will constitute double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste, along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades. By 2030, more than 10 million tons per year of batteries will become garbage.

Certificates of Sustainability are all about saving industries, not ecosystems. Every ‘sustainable’ timber or palm oil plantation is grown on land that once supported biodiverse forests, and certifications are often meaningless and don’t prevent further deforestation.

https://twitter.com/karmageddon67/status/1496755200194797571

In fact it’s worse than that. The whole point of ‘sustainable sourcing’ is to increase consumer acceptance of the product. This obviously increases demand, and incentivises illegal sourcing and corruption, leading to further deforestation. Certification becomes meaningless.

Critique of ‘The Ecomodernist Manifesto
“The Ecomodernist Manifesto assumes that growth is a given. The ecological economists associated with degrowth assume that growth is not a given, and that population growth, inequalities, and the decline of cheap and abundant fossil fuels,” which spurred the unprecedented growth of the global economy over the past century, means that the limits to growth are either being reached or will be reached in the very near future. The ecomodernists, by contrast, scoff at the idea of limits to growth, arguing that technology

Imagine a slow-burning fire, burning fossil fuels, emitting 500kg CO2 per year. But even worse than that, emitting significant levels of methane & N2O. And there’s 8 billion of them. Is adding 220 000 more of them per day a good idea? Should that not be addressed? The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon fueled irrigation.

So this guy who specialises in Pangolins for the IUCN:

“Dan Challender is Chair of the IUCN SSC Pangolin Specialist Group and is a member of the IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group. He currently receives funding from the National Geographic Society” Actually is in favour of the wildlife trade.

Oh yes he’s from Oxford & he advises the IUCN.

That’s par for the course.

theconversation.com/coronavirus-wh…

So the IUCN is full of trophy hunters and wildlife poachers & traffickers…

The WWF backs greenwashing of palm oil.

UN Biodiversity backs the fraud of ‘sustainable development’ as does the UNFCC & UNEP

The IPBES is population denialist, as they all are
earthjournalism.net/stories/inside… What hope? Is there any?

A lot of the ‘science’ which backs anthropocentrism & economic growth, and derails any attention to unsustainable population growth and economic growth, comes from one University in particular. Which ‘coincidentally’ happens to be the recipient of BIG donations from billionaires. The science I’m talking about is that which advocates plant-based diets as a remedy for loss of ecosystems & biodiversity, and for emissions, which didn’t even consider the effect of population growth. Also ‘science’ which advocates for the wildlife trade, and there’s lots more.

So, let’s all put our blinkers on, drink some more kool-aid, update our memberships to the Flat Earth Society, nod approvingly with George Monbiot & ER... and pretend none of this is related to human overpopulation & population growth (Thread)i ..”human population grew from 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion people during the course of the 20th century. (Think about it: It took all of time for population to reach 1.6 billion; then it shot to 6.1 billion over just 100 years.)

Demographic growth is the one key dependent variable in the IPCC’s scientific equation. But we refuse to take action. So, yes, even IPCC scientists are science deniers too. They know population growth is the killer issue, yet we avoid it.

marketwatch.com/story/climate-… As problem solvers, the U.N.’s climate scientists aren’t much different than Exxon Mobil’s CEO Rex Tillerson. He admits climate change is real, just an “engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution.” Same with the IPCC.

So last night I was awoken around 2am by a trail camera being triggered. On edge now because dingoes migrated here December 15th last year and stayed most of the year. First photo was black but I enhanced it on my phone. Nothing. @DingoResearch @Gergyl @dynamat @talkingkoala This has worked before - did the same recently. Wallaby on the right only visible on enhancing an underexposed photo.

Pinker is an intellectual darling of the most powerful echelons of global society. He spoke to the world’s elite this year at the World’s Economic Forum in Davos on the perils of what he calls “political correctness,” and has been named one of Times “100”

opendemocracy.net/en/transformat… In November 2017, around the time when Pinker was likely putting the final touches on his manuscript, over fifteen thousand scientists from 184 countries issued a dire warning to humanity. Because of our overconsumption of the world’s resources, they declared,

“a recent report declared that the main strategy of world leaders for tackling climate change won’t work. It’s called green growth, & it’s favoured by some of the largest and most influential organisations in the world, including the UN and the World Bank”
google.com.au/amp/s/theconve… “Green growth is a vague term with many definitions, but broadly speaking, it’s the idea that society can reduce its environmental impacts and slash its emissions, even while the economy continues to grow and the quantity of stuff that’s produced and consumed increases.”

The IMF says we can increase economic growth over the next 15 years and decrease emissions to net zero by 2050

Hey ⁦@GrogsGamut⁩ I don’t think I’d be relying on IMF for advice on climate change. They’ve financed a vast array of ecocidal projects. theguardian.com/business/comme… The World Bank & IMF have been involved in literally dozens of ecocidal projects with disastrous outcomes, in the name of economic growth. These have caused massive loss of C sink forests & have contributed to climate change. Eg $600m loan for Indonesia’s transmigration.

WARNING: 👉TIRADE👈

For anyone who believes 8 billion people is sustainable on planet Earth.

Here’s why it isn’t.

• We all need food
• Food is non-discretionary consumption- everyone needs it.
• Food needs agriculture.
•50% of habitable land is now used by agriculture. • A large proportion of that land which is now agriculture used to be carbon sink forests, and used to regulate the climate. No longer.
• The rest of that land used to be grasslands, which also held C in the soil with help of herds of wildlife - no longer.