Whilst this survey showed a huge proportion of the global population want climate action, I'm not sure there's any understanding here about why there has been no climate action, in the last 33 years.
1/🧵

https://twitter.com/SteB777/status/1914645569047327166

Wind the clock back 33-35 years ago, and there was a similar figure wanting climate action, and action to address the ecological crisis, and that resulted in the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. World leaders, made big speeches, promising action.

2/un.org/en/conferences…

"A huge 89% majority of the world’s people want stronger action to fight the climate crisis ..."

I will write a far more in depth thread about this, shortly. However, this is my immediate response.

1/🧵theguardian.com/environment/20… As I have repeatedly explained, it's not the public blocking climate action, but governments, corporate interests, oligarchs, and the wealthiest people, in our societies.

Governments pledged to address the climate crisis 33 years ago, but then did nothing.
2/

The reason for my last 2 threads, wasn't to be pessimistic, or even to apportion blame.

Rather, the approach for the last 50+ years, has been to persuade politicians, governments, to act on the climate and ecological crisis. This has proved absolutely fruitless.
1/🧵

https://twitter.com/SteB777/status/1913599810290036835

Scientists, conservationists, NGOs and activists - and even the UN, have expended a massive amount of energy, in trying to persuade governments to act on the climate and ecological crisis, for nothing. Governments have done nothing to address these crises.
2/

I want to clarify what I mean in this thread, when I say, the official fight against climate change was set up to fail.

Nothing agreed to was ever binding. It'd have been very easy to have had a binding agreement to phase out fossil fuels.

1/🧵threadreaderapp.com/thread/1913154… It was clear back in 1992, when the UNFCCC was signed, that the only way to prevent the climate crisis, becoming a climate catastrophe, was to phase out the widespread use of fossil fuels. This was tacit in the UNFCCC.

2/unfccc.int/files/essentia…

I want to propose something very serious, that needs to be considered, and widely known.

Was the official "fight" against climate change, deliberately set up to fail i.e. it was fixed, it was never meant to succeed, and it's primary purpose, was to deceive the public?
1/🧵 This is not something I am just saying now, I first proposed this possibility in September/October 1992, just after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, to a leading scientist, who had written the standard textbook on air pollution and climate change.

2/independent.co.uk/arts-entertain…

This is horrific. For many years we have been led false narratives, blatant gaslighting, and propaganda, about the successful actions of governments to address climate change. How emissions are plateauing, whilst in reality, atmospheric CO2 levels get steadily higher.
1/🧵

https://twitter.com/ClimateDad77/status/1911461995620024792

If you look at the Keeling Curve, linked to in @ClimateDad77's excellent post, you will see a continuing climb in atmospheric CO2 levels, which just goes up and up. None of the climate talks, the schemes, the government talk, make one bit of difference.

2/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_C…

This point, actually proves my point, it doesn't contradict it. This is why I said the human caused megafauna extinction hypotheses, are a house built on sand. Unless you are going to say early humans directly hunted a species to existence, saying they're the cause is false.
1/🧵

https://twitter.com/Race2Extinct/status/1911125761500889443

Every ecological event/effect, actually has a myriad of causal factors, in a massive causal chain, not just one. Unless there is an overwhelming single cause like directly killing an animal or a population of them, then ascribing that to a single cause, is at best specious.
2/

I find a very common misconception, including with educated, or even scientifically literate people, is that climate change, just means a warmer climate, and we can just adapt to that. When the reality is, it's going to carry on getting warmer and worse for a very long time.
1/

https://twitter.com/SteB777/status/1910042450078638360

In other words, just letting the climate warm, by not rapidly reducing emissions, would produce an ongoing pattern of increasing adversity, that is going to carry on for a very long time. Not just a transition, and that is it, then.
2/

There is a huge problem with this nature hating, and ecologically ignorant, Starmer, Labour government. They act as if the biodiversity crisis and indeed the climate crisis doesn't exist, because they are so firmly fixated on economic growth.

1/🧵theguardian.com/environment/20… However, I must take issue of some of the rhetoric, lacking vision of these heads of NGOs, which are too fixated on promoting their organizations, rather than focusing on the actual nature crisis.
2/

I want to contrast government reactions to tobacco smoking as a health hazard, and towards climate change. This is because the threat of both, was first realized at about the same time, in the early 1950s. Climate change was known about prior to 1950, but not as a threat.
1/🧵 "‘Smoking gun proof’: fossil fuel industry knew of climate danger as early as 1954, documents show"

2/theguardian.com/us-news/2024/j…

@jrockstrom @LinkedIn Good article, good analysis. But the dangerous thing all conventional analysis misses out, is the stability of our system to climate and ecological shocks, and the danger of it collapsing. There is no ongoing research into this.

1/pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn… @jrockstrom @LinkedIn Conventionally, whether it is Nordhaus' preposterous DICE model, of more up to date analysis, all assumes this happening in the present system, and doesn't look at the stability of the system itself.

2/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1907931…

The "old assumption" @Keir_Starmer needs to ditch, is the pursuit of economic growth. Starmer seems to have conveniently forgotten that the UK fully signed up for the principles of Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.

1/🧵en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21 Starmer's idea that he, the UK can somehow adapt to the "new reality" since Trump's tariff policy and trade wars, is naive in the extreme.

As I explained in this thread here, what emerges from this new scenario, the emergent property, is unknown.

2/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1907938…

Let me briefly explain the major miscalculation of Trump and his sycophants, over his tariff debacle.

Trump like most psychopaths, doesn't understand consequence, and he has zero understanding of systems thinking.

1/theguardian.com/business/2025/… The way Trump and his sycophantic loons see it, the US is the biggest economy in the world, and what they do, will re-shape the world in the favour of the US. But it doesn't take into account, how the rest of the world reacts to it.
2/

I've been saying this for a long time. Now the insurers are waking up to it. That is, the climate crisis is a serious threat to capitalism. They way I put it, is climate will strangle economic growth and the financial system will crash.

1/theguardian.com/environment/20… I am just baffled by why more don't see it. My point that our civilization has got a maximum of 10-15 years before our civilization with business as usual BaU implodes - is based on that being approximately how long capitalism has got left with BaU.
2/

When people's kids are growing up, the most important thing is being able to feed and cloth your children. In the UK, around 4.3 million children are living in poverty, and this will increase due to Starmer's, neoliberal benefits policies, pushed by right wing think tanks.
1/

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1907323675851862101

Here's my source for the amount of children living in poverty. This is 30% of the children living in the UK. The amount of children living in poverty in the UK is increasing, and is about to be made much worse, with @Keir_Starmer's callous policy.

2/actionforchildren.org.uk/blog/where-is-…

@AyoCaesar Hmm, Ash, you are not doing your credibility much good. Firstly, I'm not a member of the Green Party, or a supporter of any party.

This is your problem - "On the doorstep, many voters perceive them as solely an environmental party." The environment, is everything.
1/ @AyoCaesar Everything is ecological, without it we wouldn't exist. If we don't radically re-structure our society, our civilization could collapse within the next 15 years because of the climate crisis, and if it does, most people will starve to death.

2/theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

@NBPTROCKS @dlature Let me explain. I think the often focus on "climate solutions" is totally meaningless and a dangerous distraction. Like should we use, nuclear, geoengineering, CCS and a 1001 other climate solutions. All totally meaningless if there is no realistic means of implementing them.
1/ @NBPTROCKS @dlature I've been saying this to nuclear advocates, for 35+ years. I point out environmentalists are no obstruction to nuclear power, they don't have that sort of influence. I say, nuclear expansion doesn't happened for deep inherent problems, and therefore it's not a viable solution.
2/

Fight the Oligarchs - Tax the Rich - Tax Billionaires Out of Existence - It really is that simple

Oligarchs, and the politicians in their pockets, are out of control. We need to stop them.
1/🧵 As most people know, I mainly commentate on the climate and ecological crisis, everything to do with the natural world, along with social justice, because climate justice = social justice.

But it is impossible to address any of this, with oligarchs undoing everything.
2/

One thing is for certain, the current leadership of the Labour Part, lied their way into power, they are fraudsters. It's not just their treatment of the sick and disabled, we couldn't have anticipated when people voted for them.
1/ Of course, the big one for me, is rowing back on Labour's climate commitments, which were already pathetically inadequate.

Then there is the clear anti-nature position of Starmer's government.
2/

That global change is climate change, and given the complete lack of either Keir Starmer, or any other government taking it seriously, there is no wonderful future of economic growth.

Climate change is not something that is going to hit us in the late 21st Century, but now.
1/🧵

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1904807826414805207

As former UK government Chief Scientist, @Sir_David_King makes clear we have to take urgent and radical action now, or there will be very serious consequences for our civilization, like it collapsing.

2/theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

I think @RachelReevesMP and @Keir_Starmer must be either very thick, or as bent as nine bob notes, if they can't work out how to balance the books.

All these supposed shortfalls, could be more than cured by a modest wealth tax.
1/🧵

https://twitter.com/meadwaj/status/1904591621200711811

"UK billionaires’ wealth increased by £35m ($44m) a day to £182bn ($231bn)"

What is skyrocketing, is not the welfare bill for the sick and disabled, but the expanding wealth of billionaires and the other very rich.

2/oxfam.org.uk/media/press-re…