Stephen Barlow

Someone, at some level, must be aware of that, even if Starmer himself is too vain, or stupid, to realize he's facilitating Reform.

Prime Minister will fight any attempt to replace him, friends say Allies of the prime minister are worried his job might be under immediate threat.

"Allies of the prime minister are making it clear he would fight any challenge to his leadership from Labour MPs."

Of course. Keir Starmer is obviously a puppet, parachuted into the leadership of the Labour Party, to serve vested interests. You bet he'll fight.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

That's a very serious problem.

I have said quite a few times, that whilst I'm over 65, I would be quite happy, for there to be an upper limit on voting age, so it is only those younger than us making the decisions.

I consider this to be one of the most important, accurate and relevant articles ever written. Well done to @georgemonbiot.bsky.social

I am intending to comment on this, but I have so much to say about it, that every time I have started, I've written to0 much, and hardly covered any of it.

Centre left parties, in the UK, the US and elsewhere, got hijacked by neoliberals. Neoliberals are a type of cult difficult to fathom, as they deny neoliberalism exists, when clearly it does. It's not clear if neoliberalism, is a genuine belief, or just a sell out to oligarchs and vested interests.

I've long being aware of this phenomenon. Over 10 years ago, I used to live in Blackburn. Streets bordering Asian areas were festooned with St George's flags and bunting. It was definitely, territorial.

Moron

Yes, and Gaza, where the bias was obviously in the other direction. I don't get what the stuff about Trump was. They just seem to have cut the bit out where he said, don't misbehave, which was only a contrivance disclaimer, to distance himself from what he knew they were going to do.

Exactly.

Something like GB News, I suspect.

I did try to make that clear in the thread, that governments are doing everything possible to aid the lifestyles of the very rich.

As I say, the way governments frame emissions, is as if, we are all equally responsible for emissions. Not as the facts show, that a tiny proportion of the richest people in society, have an outsized contribution towards emissions, and governments refuse to curtail this.
19/

Government climate policy, is all about encouraging profligate energy use, because the richest use the most energy, and economic growth, is what drives their increasing wealth. None of this policy, is about effectively reducing emissions.
18/

Coming back to Professor Johan Rockstrom's presentation, that to limit warming, we need a 30 times reductions in emissions by the top 1%. When in practice, governments do everything possible to encourage the extravagant lifestyles of the very rich, producing all those emissions.
17/

More than 1,800 private planes landed in UK during Covid-19 lockdown Figure includes privately owned planes, business jets, cargo aircraft and military flights

During the COVID lockdowns, where most commercial flights were stopped, huge amounts of private planes still flew, into and out of the UK. This illustrates, how governments, bend over backwards, to encourage these lifestyles, producing massive emissions.
www.theguardian.com/world/2020/m...
16/

In other words, governments are trying to encourage profligate energy consumption, rather than focusing on getting the richest people in society, to curtail their extravagant lifestyles, which produce massive emissions.
15/

Now let's look at climate policy, which governments favour. As we've already seen, to keep emissions low, we need to see a drastic reduction, in the emissions of the top 1%. But governments obsess over renewable energy, carbon capture and storage, nuclear etc.
14/

Who primarily benefits, from this government obsession, with the pursuit of economic growth? Well the very rich, whose wealth is growing exponentially, whilst for the vast majority of people, they are struggling to keep their head above water.
www.oxfam.org.uk/media/press-...
13/

We've already seen, how the majority of flights are taken by a wealthy minority. So when governments expand airports, this is primarily been done for the benefit of a wealthy minority. However, governments will frame this, as in pursuit of economic growth
12/

What is more, as the wealthiest, have outsized influence, they lobby furiously against any attempt to curtail their extravagant lifestyles, push for tax breaks, and furiously lobby against any attempt to get them to pay wealth tax.
11/

The evidence is very clear. A wealthy minority, are responsible for most flying, and therefore emissions, and not ordinary people taking the odd flight.

It's not just that the wealthy, are responsible for the lion's share of emissions, they drive other consumption, as people try to catch up.
10/

'Wealthy' minority responsible for majority of global air travel, says climate group study The group says 12% of people in the US take 66% of flights, while in France 50% are taken by just 2%.

Ordinary people are made to feel guilty about taking the odd flight.

"'Wealthy' minority responsible for majority of global air travel, says climate group study

The group says 12% of people in the US take 66% of flights, while in France 50% are taken by just 2%."
news.sky.com/story/wealth...
9/

Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%, report says ‘Polluter elite’ are plundering the planet to point of destruction, says Oxfam after comprehensive study of climate inequality

When has any government policy, in any country, focused on getting the richest top 1% to reduce their emissions? It is never mentioned, even once, even though the top 1% produce more emissions, than the bottom 66%.
www.theguardian.com/environment/...
8/

All government action, is framed as if all people, are equally contributing to the climate crisis, and the public are subjected to gaslighting, that it is up to them individually reduce emissions. Whilst the rich gallivant around the world in private jets, and gigantic yachts etc.
7/

So what policy and action, have our governments taken during the last 33 years, to reel in the outsized emissions, and consumption impacts, of the richest 1% in the world? Precisely nothing.

They've reduced their taxes, built them new airports, and facilitated their use of private jets.
6/

This has been very clear for the last 33 years since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, that the primary problem, was the outsized emissions and consumption, of the richest people in the world. It drove the whole climate and ecological crisis.
www.un.org/en/conferenc...
5/

He also said, the bottom 50%, could increase their emissions by a factor of 3, and we would still be on course for holding warming below 1.5C, as per the 2015 Paris Agreement.

This was very clear-cut, the top 1% of the richest, needed to drastically reduce their emissions.
4/

YouTube video by UN Climate Change Johan Rockström at #COP26: 10 New Insights in Climate Science | UN Climate Change

In this presentation at COP26, Professor Johan Rockstrom, gave a dry, academic assessment of what action was necessary to keep us on track, to limit warming. He explained that the top 1% needed to reduce their emissions, 33x to keep us on course to staying below 1.5C.
youtu.be/iW4fPXzX1S0?...
3/

I want to support my point from the other day, about how for the last 33 years, climate policy, as implemented by governments, has been about one thing, and that is preserving the lifestyles, of the very rich, the top 1%.
1/🧵