Naturalist, Conservationist, Environmentalist and Nature Photographer (especially macro). Born at 314ppm. Woke (awake).
https://t.co/B7XkkKho07
36 subscribers
Nov 23 • 9 tweets • 6 min read
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/🧵
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/
Nov 23 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
"Boris Johnson ‘beyond contempt’ for attack on Covid inquiry’s findings and refusal to apologise"
Boris Johnson was totally unfit for public office, and he has got a record of refusing to take responsibility for lies and errors, that goes back to his school days.
1/🧵independent.co.uk/news/uk/politi…
Max Hastings, himself a staunch Conservative, warned people about the dangers of Boris Johnson becoming PM, many years before he became PM.
What's more, Max Hastings was his former boss, as editor of the Telegraph and has known him, his whole working life, where Johnson was first forced to resign as a journalist, for making stuff up, and then as Shadow Culture Secretary, for lying to then Conservative Party leader, Michael Howard, about an affair he'd had. He is an unrepentant serial liar. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
2/
Nov 22 • 8 tweets • 4 min read
"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/
Nov 14 • 5 tweets • 3 min read
"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
Nov 14 • 7 tweets • 4 min read
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/
Nov 7 • 23 tweets • 5 min read
"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/
Nov 5 • 11 tweets • 3 min read
"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.
Once again @grok is spread disinformation and smears, by falsely labelling people who are moderately left wing, as far left. I am just going to give a brief history lesson, to this artificial unintelligence. Of how the left actually is, not how the extreme right, typifies it. 1/
Firstly, I am not ideological, and I regard all ideology of any direction of ideology, as misconstrued i.e. this is not defensiveness on my part.
The left represents a very broad spectrum of political viewpoints.
2/
Oct 26 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
I see no evidence @ZackPolanski lost his temper.
The issue of economic growth is far more complex, than being for or against it. It is a vague ill-defined concept, which is not properly understood, by those who advocate it.
1/🧵
Advocates of the pursuit of economic growth, as if it's more important than everything else, usually have a very poor, to non-existent grasp, of how economic growth is achieved, and that our economy is entirely reliant on the natural systems, it is systematically destroying.
2/
Oct 22 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
"Global use of coal hit record high in 2024
Bleak report finds greenhouse gas emissions are still rising despite ‘exponential’ growth of renewables"
This was entirely predictable, to anyone with their eyes open.
1/🧵theguardian.com/environment/20…
With the increase in the use of AI, EVs etc, it is clear that the increase in renewables is only going to cover the increase in energy use, not to replace fossil fuels.
As I and many other have pointed out, only a pro-active attempt to phase our fossil fuels, will work.
2/
Oct 18 • 24 tweets • 4 min read
What I was trying to do with this thread, is to illustrate, how all those who deny the existential threat to our civilization, from the climate and ecological crisis, are in some form of ideologically motivated denial.
1/🧵
As I point out, ALL, not some, who attack environmentalists and climate activists as alarmists, because there is no scientific evidence, for the threat to our civilization by the climate crisis, are being intellectually dishonest.
2/
Oct 18 • 28 tweets • 5 min read
I want to write a few threads about civilization collapse, and the danger of it, because so few to any understand it. Although it will probably be a waste of time, because I seemed to be having my threads hidden. But I just want to get it down.
1/🧵
I'm not a doom-monger, saying civilization is going to happen come what may. All my commenting is to stop that happening, because it is entirely possible to avoid this, if, and only if we massively change our system, and start cooperating, and stop competing.
2/
Oct 10 • 11 tweets • 2 min read
"Peter Thiel, the billionaire political svengali and tech investor, is worried about the antichrist. It could be the US. It could be Greta Thunberg."
If anyone closely resembles the anti-christ, it's Peter Thiel, Donald Trump and JD Vance.
1/🧵theguardian.com/us-news/2025/o…
Just to make it clear, that I am not religious. But I have read most of the Bible when I was younger, and self-evidently Trump hasn't.
Enough to know that the Jesus described was quite the woke commie.
2/
Oct 10 • 16 tweets • 4 min read
Once again, Twitter/X, seems to be hiding my own posts from me. I was trying to explained the messed up nature of our modern society. We need to understand another systems theory, property, and that is emergent properties.
1/🧵
An emergent property, is where out of a set of parameters of a system, a whole new property emerges, that can't simplistically be understood, from the parts of the system it emerged from. It develops a life of its own.
Trump is not some sort of hero, deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize, for this so-called peace deal. Trump is personally responsible for all the tens of thousands Palestinian deaths since he has been in office, as Biden before him.
1/🧵
Both Biden and Trump could have immediately stopped the genocidal massacre of Palestinian civilians, and their starvation, by simply threatening to cut off US military and other aid, as Trump did with Ukraine.
2/
Oct 8 • 18 tweets • 4 min read
I made this comment in response to @ZackPolanski comment, about being attacked by the right. I will place it as a free standing thread. It is about why an agenda of radical change, is the only realistic way forward, and why.
1/🧵
“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.”
@KevinClimate
I want to commend @ZackPolanski for finally saying things in public, in a strong and forthright way, that appeals to everyone. Progressives, without a platform, have been saying these things for years, but never have they been effectively articulated publicly.
1/🧵
Yes, other politicians, have said enlightened things, and I acknowledge them. But none have shaken up the discourse, like @ZackPolanski has. We need far more people to pick up the baton, and start saying these things, in a clear and effective way, to speak with one voice.
2/
Oct 6 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
This is straight up sophistry, clever false argument by @lewis_goodall. I can explain to @ZackPolanski how to deal with false argument like this. Instead of trying to counter the false argument, the tactic should be to demand he produces examples to support his assertions.
1/🧵
@lewis_goodall is not asking questions. He is making a series of provably false assertions, implying that fascists declare their intentions to create a one party authoritarian state, before they get into power. I know of no example where this has happened.
2/
Oct 6 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
So I'm supposed to believe that I only got 298 views and 8 likes, on a factual, thread about the Orwellian truth manipulation we are being subjected to, when I have over 26K followers, and 2 months ago, over half a million people were viewing my threads? 1/7
Here is the evidence of the sort of viewing figures I was getting only 2 months ago. I mean, I have had over 3.2 million views in 7 days. I know what happened, I am not fucking stupid. 2/7
Oct 6 • 19 tweets • 4 min read
The world is in a very dangerous place. The extreme right, and centrist neoliberals (they merge into each other) are use Orwellian doublethink/doublespeak, and the methods described in "1984", as a political how to do it manual.
1/🧵en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian
In doublethink/speak, things become inverted, War is Peace, Slavery becomes Freedom, Ignorance is Strength, and Lies become the Truth.
It's very easy to illustrate this with how the term terrorism, has become inverted, and abused.
"Synagogue attacker who killed two was a ‘terrorist targeting Jews because they are Jews’, says Starmer"
Netanyahu's government, is committing genocide in Gaza, because the Palestinian residents of Gaza, aren't Jews. That is a fact.
1/🧵theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2…
I condemn anti-Semitism, and the type of hatred that led to this mindless violence, as much as I condemn the Zionist hatred of Palestinians. Mindless violence and hatred, is mindless violence and hatred. It's not about sides.
2/
