#georgemonbiot — Public Fediverse posts

#GeorgeMonbiot 23. Apr. 2026 Guardian Opinion Climate Crisis

A catastrophic climate event is upon us. Here is why you’ve heard so little about it

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/23/catastrophic-climate-event-scientists-atlantic-system-collapse-billionaire-existential-crisis?CMP=share_btn_url

#climatechange #ClimateEmergency #ClimateCrisis #ClimateBreakdown #ClimateDisruption #globalWarming #globalHeating #ExtremeWeather #polycrisis #billionaires #BigOil #societalCollapse

#FYI #PaulBeckwith video lecture #AMOC #Amazon #tippingPoint #billionaires #BigOil #societalCollapse

Paul on an excellent article by #GeorgeMonbiot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-DdaDJmOI0

#climate #ClimateScience #climatechange #ClimateEmergency #ClimateCrisis #ClimateBreakdown #ClimateDisruption #globalWarming #globalHeating #ExtremeWeather #polycrisis

Great talk by #GeorgeMonbiot on #TheInvisibleDoctrine - #TheSecretHistoryOfNeoliberalism at #TheVic #GSA union tonight with #TheNational editor Laura Webster. Read the book & go see him if you can. There is hope!
#MakeHopePossible #DemocraticLeftScotland
George says politics should be about the billions not the billionaires, #PrivateSufficiencyPublicLuxury
Also, it makes no sense for Scotland to stay in the UK #ScottishIndependence #YouYesYet

Great talk by #GeorgeMonbiot on #TheInvisibleDoctrine - #TheSecretHistoryOfNeoliberalism at #TheVic #GSA union tonight with #TheNational editor Laura Webster. Read the book & go see him if you can. There is hope!
#MakeHopePossible #DemocraticLeftScotland
George says politics should be about the billions not the billionaires, #PrivateSufficiencyPublicLuxury
Also, it makes no sense for Scotland to stay in the UK #ScottishIndependence #YouYesYet

Great talk by #GeorgeMonbiot on #TheInvisibleDoctrine - #TheSecretHistoryOfNeoliberalism at #TheVic #GSA union tonight with #TheNational editor Laura Webster. Read the book & go see him if you can. There is hope!
#MakeHopePossible #DemocraticLeftScotland
George says politics should be about the billions not the billionaires, #PrivateSufficiencyPublicLuxury
Also, it makes no sense for Scotland to stay in the UK #ScottishIndependence #YouYesYet

Great talk by #GeorgeMonbiot on #TheInvisibleDoctrine - #TheSecretHistoryOfNeoliberalism at #TheVic #GSA union tonight with #TheNational editor Laura Webster. Read the book & go see him if you can. There is hope!
#MakeHopePossible #DemocraticLeftScotland
George says politics should be about the billions not the billionaires, #PrivateSufficiencyPublicLuxury
Also, it makes no sense for Scotland to stay in the UK #ScottishIndependence #YouYesYet

Great talk by #GeorgeMonbiot on #TheInvisibleDoctrine - #TheSecretHistoryOfNeoliberalism at #TheVic #GSA union tonight with #TheNational editor Laura Webster. Read the book & go see him if you can. There is hope!
#MakeHopePossible #DemocraticLeftScotland
George says politics should be about the billions not the billionaires, #PrivateSufficiencyPublicLuxury
Also, it makes no sense for Scotland to stay in the UK #ScottishIndependence #YouYesYet

Who should I vote for in a climate emergency?

It is getting increasingly difficult to sort out fact from fiction when discussing local politics. Blatant lies are sometimes told on election leaflets, and misinformation is deliberately spread on social media. How do we get to the truth, and who should we vote for to prioritise environmental action?

Greenpeace has been on the streets encouraging people to register to vote and support politicians who prioritise tackling the climate and nature emergencies. One volunteer told me, “I talked to a group of workmen in hi-viz. They were very disillusioned with politics, 3 of the 4 said they were not going to vote because of the cost of living and suggested the Council wasn’t going to change things. Then one very unexpectedly said, “Look at this Council, if they wanted to do something about cars, they’d make public transport free!” 

At present, Sheffield City Council has 84 Councillors. There are 36 Labour, 27 Liberal Democrats, and 14 Greens that share power in a cooperation agreement. The opposition is made up of 6 Independents and one Reform Councillor. So talk in election leaflets of one party funding this, or being responsible for that, is a bit disingenuous, as the funding comes mainly from us, the Council Tax payers and Government grants. To get anything done, there has to be agreement between at least two of the parties. One third of the Councillors are up for election this year, but due to resignations, two wards have two votes. 

I don’t think there has ever been a broader choice of candidates in Sheffield elections. Most wards have the choice of Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Conservative, TUSC and Reform. There are also candidates from Restore UK in some wards. This is a party further to the right of Reform, but they are called  “Independent” on the ballot papers. These should not be confused with Independent candidates in some wards, standing on a pro-Palestine ticket. With such a massive choice of candidates, if the vote is evenly split, one party could win with a very small proportion of the vote. Our first past the post voting system was designed for two-party contests. The Government must bring in fair proportional voting as soon as possible.  

This opinion poll indicates that the Labour vote has collapsed, and they could lose all their seats in this election. The poll has them hanging on to Darnall by just 2%. Greens could gain Labour strongholds Manor Castle, Walkley, Burngreave and Crookes and Crosspool and Ecclesall and Graves Park from the Lib Dems. while holding City, Hillsborough and Gleadless Valley. Reform could gain Birley, Woodhouse, Southey, Shiregreen and Brightside from Labour and Beighton from the Lib Dems. Lib Dems could gain East Ecclesfield from Labour, and hold Beauchief, Dore and Totley, Fulwood, Mosborough, Stannington and West Ecclesfield. So overall, massive gains for Greens and Reform and a massive collapse for Labour.

But this is only a poll: the only one that counts is on May 7th. 

So, which parties should interest you if you are making environmental issues your priority? Three parties,  Reform, the Conservatives and Restore, are now ideologically opposed to the concept of Net Zero carbon emissions. They oppose measures that improve life for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users in pursuit of drivers’ votes. They oppose renewable energy schemes in favour of a Trump-like “drill baby drill” attitude, hoping to exploit more oil in the North Sea, which we can’t afford to burn if we are going to avoid climate tipping points. Their disbelief or scepticism in the science of climate change is deeply worrying, but not surprising when you examine where their funds come from. These parties have deep vested interests in oil and tech companies and the millionaires associated with them.  

I could only find local manifestos for 3 parties, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. If you are not sure who to vote for, do examine the policies carefully.

It’s hard to find mentions of environmental issues in most election leaflets. But it’s disappointing to see untruths being told. Some Labour leaflets and social media posts, for instance, are taking full credit for  Green Bonds, an idea brought to the Council by the Green Party.  The Bonds quickly raised £1 million pounds for solar panels on school roofs. 

Another hot potato is the Greenbelt. Liberal Democrats and Reform are both criticising the Green Party for voting for the Local Plan, and campaigners have bombarded social media with memes, objecting to the Local Plan. The Lib Dem leaflet for Ecclesall says “The Lib Dems voted to protect our Greenbelt and nature from Labour’s building plans. The Green Party voted with Labour to pave over our greenbelt in yet another let down!” The Green Party say that a Local Plan is vital to stop developments throughout the Greenbelt and in other areas of special interest not protected by the Greenbelt. They voted to give as much protection to the Greenbelt as possible and will oppose planning applications on Greenbelt land in future. So they did not vote to “pave over the Greenbelt”, they voted to protect it. 

Only the Green Party mentions the climate crisis in their manifesto, but one crucial detail is missing from all the election leaflets I’ve seen. How are we going to meet the Council’s commitment to reach Net Zero by 2030?

This graph, produced by Sam Wakeling, shows that we are way off track. The Council declared a Climate Emergency in 2019, but has never taken monitoring of CO2 seriously. Extinction Rebellion was saying at the time that we need to aim for Net Zero by 2025. They were right. Today, we may already be too late to save the Coral Reefs, which are home to a quarter of the planet’s marine species. We are dangerously close to other tipping points, like the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation, without which Britain would be 5 degrees C colder, with agricultural production falling dramatically worldwide. All politicians, at every level of Government, need to be prioritising climate action and working out how we can be more resilient as a country, ready for shocks like the closure of the Straits of Hormuz or the next extreme weather event.  

I don’t blame political parties or the electorate for their silence on AMOC and other climate tipping points. Political parties need to attract votes and appeal to the demands of their supporters. But most people are completely in the dark regarding the threats climate tipping points now pose to us. And the electorate isn’t demanding climate action because the mainstream media don’t inform them. This week George Monbiot published an excellent article on AMOC, but there has been very little on the BBC or the popular press.   Maybe this will change soon, because the BBC are being taken to a tribunal for suppressing the most important climate news. There will be more on this in future posts.

If we are to have any chance of meeting Sheffield’s emissions target, we urgently need more Green Councillors in the Town Hall who will make the climate and nature emergencies a priority. Wherever you live in Sheffield, Vote Green Party on May 7th.

Who should I vote for in a climate emergency?

It is getting increasingly difficult to sort out fact from fiction when discussing local politics. Blatant lies are sometimes told on election leaflets, and misinformation is deliberately spread on social media. How do we get to the truth, and who should we vote for to prioritise environmental action?

Greenpeace has been on the streets encouraging people to register to vote and support politicians who prioritise tackling the climate and nature emergencies. One volunteer told me, “I talked to a group of workmen in hi-viz. They were very disillusioned with politics, 3 of the 4 said they were not going to vote because of the cost of living and suggested the Council wasn’t going to change things. Then one very unexpectedly said, “Look at this Council, if they wanted to do something about cars, they’d make public transport free!” 

At present, Sheffield City Council has 84 Councillors. There are 36 Labour, 27 Liberal Democrats, and 14 Greens that share power in a cooperation agreement. The opposition is made up of 6 Independents and one Reform Councillor. So talk in election leaflets of one party funding this, or being responsible for that, is a bit disingenuous, as the funding comes mainly from us, the Council Tax payers and Government grants. To get anything done, there has to be agreement between at least two of the parties. One third of the Councillors are up for election this year, but due to resignations, two wards have two votes. 

I don’t think there has ever been a broader choice of candidates in Sheffield elections. Most wards have the choice of Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Conservative, TUSC and Reform. There are also candidates from Restore UK in some wards. This is a party further to the right of Reform, but they are called  “Independent” on the ballot papers. These should not be confused with Independent candidates in some wards, standing on a pro-Palestine ticket. With such a massive choice of candidates, if the vote is evenly split, one party could win with a very small proportion of the vote. Our first past the post voting system was designed for two-party contests. The Government must bring in fair proportional voting as soon as possible.  

This opinion poll indicates that the Labour vote has collapsed, and they could lose all their seats in this election. The poll has them hanging on to Darnall by just 2%. Greens could gain Labour strongholds Manor Castle, Walkley, Burngreave and Crookes and Crosspool and Ecclesall and Graves Park from the Lib Dems. while holding City, Hillsborough and Gleadless Valley. Reform could gain Birley, Woodhouse, Southey, Shiregreen and Brightside from Labour and Beighton from the Lib Dems. Lib Dems could gain East Ecclesfield from Labour, and hold Beauchief, Dore and Totley, Fulwood, Mosborough, Stannington and West Ecclesfield. So overall, massive gains for Greens and Reform and a massive collapse for Labour.

But this is only a poll: the only one that counts is on May 7th. 

So, which parties should interest you if you are making environmental issues your priority? Three parties,  Reform, the Conservatives and Restore, are now ideologically opposed to the concept of Net Zero carbon emissions. They oppose measures that improve life for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users in pursuit of drivers’ votes. They oppose renewable energy schemes in favour of a Trump-like “drill baby drill” attitude, hoping to exploit more oil in the North Sea, which we can’t afford to burn if we are going to avoid climate tipping points. Their disbelief or scepticism in the science of climate change is deeply worrying, but not surprising when you examine where their funds come from. These parties have deep vested interests in oil and tech companies and the millionaires associated with them.  

I could only find local manifestos for 3 parties, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. If you are not sure who to vote for, do examine the policies carefully.

It’s hard to find mentions of environmental issues in most election leaflets. But it’s disappointing to see untruths being told. Some Labour leaflets and social media posts, for instance, are taking full credit for  Green Bonds, an idea brought to the Council by the Green Party.  The Bonds quickly raised £1 million pounds for solar panels on school roofs. 

Another hot potato is the Greenbelt. Liberal Democrats and Reform are both criticising the Green Party for voting for the Local Plan, and campaigners have bombarded social media with memes, objecting to the Local Plan. The Lib Dem leaflet for Ecclesall says “The Lib Dems voted to protect our Greenbelt and nature from Labour’s building plans. The Green Party voted with Labour to pave over our greenbelt in yet another let down!” The Green Party say that a Local Plan is vital to stop developments throughout the Greenbelt and in other areas of special interest not protected by the Greenbelt. They voted to give as much protection to the Greenbelt as possible and will oppose planning applications on Greenbelt land in future. So they did not vote to “pave over the Greenbelt”, they voted to protect it. 

Only the Green Party mentions the climate crisis in their manifesto, but one crucial detail is missing from all the election leaflets I’ve seen. How are we going to meet the Council’s commitment to reach Net Zero by 2030?

This graph, produced by Sam Wakeling, shows that we are way off track. The Council declared a Climate Emergency in 2019, but has never taken monitoring of CO2 seriously. Extinction Rebellion was saying at the time that we need to aim for Net Zero by 2025. They were right. Today, we may already be too late to save the Coral Reefs, which are home to a quarter of the planet’s marine species. We are dangerously close to other tipping points, like the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation, without which Britain would be 5 degrees C colder, with agricultural production falling dramatically worldwide. All politicians, at every level of Government, need to be prioritising climate action and working out how we can be more resilient as a country, ready for shocks like the closure of the Straits of Hormuz or the next extreme weather event.  

I don’t blame political parties or the electorate for their silence on AMOC and other climate tipping points. Political parties need to attract votes and appeal to the demands of their supporters. But most people are completely in the dark regarding the threats climate tipping points now pose to us. And the electorate isn’t demanding climate action because the mainstream media don’t inform them. This week George Monbiot published an excellent article on AMOC, but there has been very little on the BBC or the popular press.   Maybe this will change soon, because the BBC are being taken to a tribunal for suppressing the most important climate news. There will be more on this in future posts.

If we are to have any chance of meeting Sheffield’s emissions target, we urgently need more Green Councillors in the Town Hall who will make the climate and nature emergencies a priority. Wherever you live in Sheffield, Vote Green Party on May 7th.

Who should I vote for in a climate emergency?

It is getting increasingly difficult to sort out fact from fiction when discussing local politics. Blatant lies are sometimes told on election leaflets, and misinformation is deliberately spread on social media. How do we get to the truth, and who should we vote for to prioritise environmental action?

Greenpeace has been on the streets encouraging people to register to vote and support politicians who prioritise tackling the climate and nature emergencies. One volunteer told me, “I talked to a group of workmen in hi-viz. They were very disillusioned with politics, 3 of the 4 said they were not going to vote because of the cost of living and suggested the Council wasn’t going to change things. Then one very unexpectedly said, “Look at this Council, if they wanted to do something about cars, they’d make public transport free!” 

At present, Sheffield City Council has 84 Councillors. There are 36 Labour, 27 Liberal Democrats, and 14 Greens that share power in a cooperation agreement. The opposition is made up of 6 Independents and one Reform Councillor. So talk in election leaflets of one party funding this, or being responsible for that, is a bit disingenuous, as the funding comes mainly from us, the Council Tax payers and Government grants. To get anything done, there has to be agreement between at least two of the parties. One third of the Councillors are up for election this year, but due to resignations, two wards have two votes. 

I don’t think there has ever been a broader choice of candidates in Sheffield elections. Most wards have the choice of Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Conservative, TUSC and Reform. There are also candidates from Restore UK in some wards. This is a party further to the right of Reform, but they are called  “Independent” on the ballot papers. These should not be confused with Independent candidates in some wards, standing on a pro-Palestine ticket. With such a massive choice of candidates, if the vote is evenly split, one party could win with a very small proportion of the vote. Our first past the post voting system was designed for two-party contests. The Government must bring in fair proportional voting as soon as possible.  

This opinion poll indicates that the Labour vote has collapsed, and they could lose all their seats in this election. The poll has them hanging on to Darnall by just 2%. Greens could gain Labour strongholds Manor Castle, Walkley, Burngreave and Crookes and Crosspool and Ecclesall and Graves Park from the Lib Dems. while holding City, Hillsborough and Gleadless Valley. Reform could gain Birley, Woodhouse, Southey, Shiregreen and Brightside from Labour and Beighton from the Lib Dems. Lib Dems could gain East Ecclesfield from Labour, and hold Beauchief, Dore and Totley, Fulwood, Mosborough, Stannington and West Ecclesfield. So overall, massive gains for Greens and Reform and a massive collapse for Labour.

But this is only a poll: the only one that counts is on May 7th. 

So, which parties should interest you if you are making environmental issues your priority? Three parties,  Reform, the Conservatives and Restore, are now ideologically opposed to the concept of Net Zero carbon emissions. They oppose measures that improve life for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users in pursuit of drivers’ votes. They oppose renewable energy schemes in favour of a Trump-like “drill baby drill” attitude, hoping to exploit more oil in the North Sea, which we can’t afford to burn if we are going to avoid climate tipping points. Their disbelief or scepticism in the science of climate change is deeply worrying, but not surprising when you examine where their funds come from. These parties have deep vested interests in oil and tech companies and the millionaires associated with them.  

I could only find local manifestos for 3 parties, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. If you are not sure who to vote for, do examine the policies carefully.

It’s hard to find mentions of environmental issues in most election leaflets. But it’s disappointing to see untruths being told. Some Labour leaflets and social media posts, for instance, are taking full credit for  Green Bonds, an idea brought to the Council by the Green Party.  The Bonds quickly raised £1 million pounds for solar panels on school roofs. 

Another hot potato is the Greenbelt. Liberal Democrats and Reform are both criticising the Green Party for voting for the Local Plan, and campaigners have bombarded social media with memes, objecting to the Local Plan. The Lib Dem leaflet for Ecclesall says “The Lib Dems voted to protect our Greenbelt and nature from Labour’s building plans. The Green Party voted with Labour to pave over our greenbelt in yet another let down!” The Green Party say that a Local Plan is vital to stop developments throughout the Greenbelt and in other areas of special interest not protected by the Greenbelt. They voted to give as much protection to the Greenbelt as possible and will oppose planning applications on Greenbelt land in future. So they did not vote to “pave over the Greenbelt”, they voted to protect it. 

Only the Green Party mentions the climate crisis in their manifesto, but one crucial detail is missing from all the election leaflets I’ve seen. How are we going to meet the Council’s commitment to reach Net Zero by 2030?

This graph, produced by Sam Wakeling, shows that we are way off track. The Council declared a Climate Emergency in 2019, but has never taken monitoring of CO2 seriously. Extinction Rebellion was saying at the time that we need to aim for Net Zero by 2025. They were right. Today, we may already be too late to save the Coral Reefs, which are home to a quarter of the planet’s marine species. We are dangerously close to other tipping points, like the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation, without which Britain would be 5 degrees C colder, with agricultural production falling dramatically worldwide. All politicians, at every level of Government, need to be prioritising climate action and working out how we can be more resilient as a country, ready for shocks like the closure of the Straits of Hormuz or the next extreme weather event.  

I don’t blame political parties or the electorate for their silence on AMOC and other climate tipping points. Political parties need to attract votes and appeal to the demands of their supporters. But most people are completely in the dark regarding the threats climate tipping points now pose to us. And the electorate isn’t demanding climate action because the mainstream media don’t inform them. This week George Monbiot published an excellent article on AMOC, but there has been very little on the BBC or the popular press.   Maybe this will change soon, because the BBC are being taken to a tribunal for suppressing the most important climate news. There will be more on this in future posts.

If we are to have any chance of meeting Sheffield’s emissions target, we urgently need more Green Councillors in the Town Hall who will make the climate and nature emergencies a priority. Wherever you live in Sheffield, Vote Green Party on May 7th.

Who should I vote for in a climate emergency?

It is getting increasingly difficult to sort out fact from fiction when discussing local politics. Blatant lies are sometimes told on election leaflets, and misinformation is deliberately spread on social media. How do we get to the truth, and who should we vote for to prioritise environmental action?

Greenpeace has been on the streets encouraging people to register to vote and support politicians who prioritise tackling the climate and nature emergencies. One volunteer told me, “I talked to a group of workmen in hi-viz. They were very disillusioned with politics, 3 of the 4 said they were not going to vote because of the cost of living and suggested the Council wasn’t going to change things. Then one very unexpectedly said, “Look at this Council, if they wanted to do something about cars, they’d make public transport free!” 

At present, Sheffield City Council has 84 Councillors. There are 36 Labour, 27 Liberal Democrats, and 14 Greens that share power in a cooperation agreement. The opposition is made up of 6 Independents and one Reform Councillor. So talk in election leaflets of one party funding this, or being responsible for that, is a bit disingenuous, as the funding comes mainly from us, the Council Tax payers and Government grants. To get anything done, there has to be agreement between at least two of the parties. One third of the Councillors are up for election this year, but due to resignations, two wards have two votes. 

I don’t think there has ever been a broader choice of candidates in Sheffield elections. Most wards have the choice of Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Conservative, TUSC and Reform. There are also candidates from Restore UK in some wards. This is a party further to the right of Reform, but they are called  “Independent” on the ballot papers. These should not be confused with Independent candidates in some wards, standing on a pro-Palestine ticket. With such a massive choice of candidates, if the vote is evenly split, one party could win with a very small proportion of the vote. Our first past the post voting system was designed for two-party contests. The Government must bring in fair proportional voting as soon as possible.  

This opinion poll indicates that the Labour vote has collapsed, and they could lose all their seats in this election. The poll has them hanging on to Darnall by just 2%. Greens could gain Labour strongholds Manor Castle, Walkley, Burngreave and Crookes and Crosspool and Ecclesall and Graves Park from the Lib Dems. while holding City, Hillsborough and Gleadless Valley. Reform could gain Birley, Woodhouse, Southey, Shiregreen and Brightside from Labour and Beighton from the Lib Dems. Lib Dems could gain East Ecclesfield from Labour, and hold Beauchief, Dore and Totley, Fulwood, Mosborough, Stannington and West Ecclesfield. So overall, massive gains for Greens and Reform and a massive collapse for Labour.

But this is only a poll: the only one that counts is on May 7th. 

So, which parties should interest you if you are making environmental issues your priority? Three parties,  Reform, the Conservatives and Restore, are now ideologically opposed to the concept of Net Zero carbon emissions. They oppose measures that improve life for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users in pursuit of drivers’ votes. They oppose renewable energy schemes in favour of a Trump-like “drill baby drill” attitude, hoping to exploit more oil in the North Sea, which we can’t afford to burn if we are going to avoid climate tipping points. Their disbelief or scepticism in the science of climate change is deeply worrying, but not surprising when you examine where their funds come from. These parties have deep vested interests in oil and tech companies and the millionaires associated with them.  

I could only find local manifestos for 3 parties, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. If you are not sure who to vote for, do examine the policies carefully.

It’s hard to find mentions of environmental issues in most election leaflets. But it’s disappointing to see untruths being told. Some Labour leaflets and social media posts, for instance, are taking full credit for  Green Bonds, an idea brought to the Council by the Green Party.  The Bonds quickly raised £1 million pounds for solar panels on school roofs. 

Another hot potato is the Greenbelt. Liberal Democrats and Reform are both criticising the Green Party for voting for the Local Plan, and campaigners have bombarded social media with memes, objecting to the Local Plan. The Lib Dem leaflet for Ecclesall says “The Lib Dems voted to protect our Greenbelt and nature from Labour’s building plans. The Green Party voted with Labour to pave over our greenbelt in yet another let down!” The Green Party say that a Local Plan is vital to stop developments throughout the Greenbelt and in other areas of special interest not protected by the Greenbelt. They voted to give as much protection to the Greenbelt as possible and will oppose planning applications on Greenbelt land in future. So they did not vote to “pave over the Greenbelt”, they voted to protect it. 

Only the Green Party mentions the climate crisis in their manifesto, but one crucial detail is missing from all the election leaflets I’ve seen. How are we going to meet the Council’s commitment to reach Net Zero by 2030?

This graph, produced by Sam Wakeling, shows that we are way off track. The Council declared a Climate Emergency in 2019, but has never taken monitoring of CO2 seriously. Extinction Rebellion was saying at the time that we need to aim for Net Zero by 2025. They were right. Today, we may already be too late to save the Coral Reefs, which are home to a quarter of the planet’s marine species. We are dangerously close to other tipping points, like the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation, without which Britain would be 5 degrees C colder, with agricultural production falling dramatically worldwide. All politicians, at every level of Government, need to be prioritising climate action and working out how we can be more resilient as a country, ready for shocks like the closure of the Straits of Hormuz or the next extreme weather event.  

I don’t blame political parties or the electorate for their silence on AMOC and other climate tipping points. Political parties need to attract votes and appeal to the demands of their supporters. But most people are completely in the dark regarding the threats climate tipping points now pose to us. And the electorate isn’t demanding climate action because the mainstream media don’t inform them. This week George Monbiot published an excellent article on AMOC, but there has been very little on the BBC or the popular press.   Maybe this will change soon, because the BBC are being taken to a tribunal for suppressing the most important climate news. There will be more on this in future posts.

If we are to have any chance of meeting Sheffield’s emissions target, we urgently need more Green Councillors in the Town Hall who will make the climate and nature emergencies a priority. Wherever you live in Sheffield, Vote Green Party on May 7th.

"Scientists and those who champion them should never close ranks against empirical challenge and criticism."

George Monbiot on how criticism of the framing of CFS/ME as a psychiatric illness was portrayed as abusive to delegitimise patient concerns.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/18/maeve-bothby-oneill-me-chronic-fatigue-syndrome

#CFSME #GeorgeMonbiot #ScientificConsensus

"Scientists and those who champion them should never close ranks against empirical challenge and criticism."

George Monbiot on how criticism of the framing of CFS/ME as a psychiatric illness was portrayed as abusive to delegitimise patient concerns.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/18/maeve-bothby-oneill-me-chronic-fatigue-syndrome

#CFSME #GeorgeMonbiot #ScientificConsensus

"Scientists and those who champion them should never close ranks against empirical challenge and criticism."

George Monbiot on how criticism of the framing of CFS/ME as a psychiatric illness was portrayed as abusive to delegitimise patient concerns.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/18/maeve-bothby-oneill-me-chronic-fatigue-syndrome

#CFSME #GeorgeMonbiot #ScientificConsensus

"Scientists and those who champion them should never close ranks against empirical challenge and criticism."

George Monbiot on how criticism of the framing of CFS/ME as a psychiatric illness was portrayed as abusive to delegitimise patient concerns.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/18/maeve-bothby-oneill-me-chronic-fatigue-syndrome

#CFSME #GeorgeMonbiot #ScientificConsensus

"Scientists and those who champion them should never close ranks against empirical challenge and criticism."

George Monbiot on how criticism of the framing of CFS/ME as a psychiatric illness was portrayed as abusive to delegitimise patient concerns.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/18/maeve-bothby-oneill-me-chronic-fatigue-syndrome

#CFSME #GeorgeMonbiot #ScientificConsensus

every second Sunday .. #Podcast #FutureHistories S03E02 - George Monbiot on Public Luxury

#GeorgeMonbiot, #JanGroos, #Interview, #FutureHistories, #Podcast, #DemocraticPlanning, #EconomicPlanning, #Markets, #Polycrisis, #ClimateCrisis, #LandReform, #Ecology, #PlanetaryBoundaries, #PublicLuxury, #Socialization, #UniversalBasicServices, #JustStopOil, #FridaysForFuture, #ExtinctionRebellion, #Movements

https://futurehistories.podbean.com/e/s03e02-george-monbiot-on-public-luxury/

transcripts can be found at https://github.com/autonompost/podcasts-transcriptions/tree/main/podcasts/futurehistories/transcripts

every second Sunday .. #Podcast #FutureHistories S03E02 - George Monbiot on Public Luxury

#GeorgeMonbiot, #JanGroos, #Interview, #FutureHistories, #Podcast, #DemocraticPlanning, #EconomicPlanning, #Markets, #Polycrisis, #ClimateCrisis, #LandReform, #Ecology, #PlanetaryBoundaries, #PublicLuxury, #Socialization, #UniversalBasicServices, #JustStopOil, #FridaysForFuture, #ExtinctionRebellion, #Movements

https://futurehistories.podbean.com/e/s03e02-george-monbiot-on-public-luxury/

transcripts can be found at https://github.com/autonompost/podcasts-transcriptions/tree/main/podcasts/futurehistories/transcripts

The Political Project of MCRC v. EPA, 2

Second In A Series
Activists Afoot!

As I suggested in my first post in this series on MCRC v. EPA, the complaint filed by the Marquette County Road Commission would have us believe that “anti-mining” forces worked secretly with and even infiltrated the EPA, and the agency’s objections to CR 595 followed a “predetermined plan.” The EPA, it claims, had decided to oppose the haul road even before the MCRC application was reviewed.

This sounds like legitimate cause for concern: permit applications should be reviewed on their merits, not pre-judged and not according to some other anti- or pro- agenda. We certainly wouldn’t want someone in the Environmental Protection Agency to be “pro-mining”; there are enough well-paid mining lobbyists already haunting the hallways in Lansing and Washington, DC. But in this case, the anti-mining label is being used as a term of opprobrium, and to distort and deliberately misrepresent what the Environmental Protection Agency is chartered and required by law to do: in short, to enforce the Clean Water Act and protect the environment.

When it comes to proving the insinuations it makes, the MCRC complaint offers slim evidence.

For example, the complaint makes a big fuss over a November 28, 2012 letter from Laura Farwell, who lives in the Marquette area and is described here as “a prominent environmental activist.”  The letter is addressed to Lynn Abramson, then a Senior Legislative Assistant for Senator Barbara Boxer, and Thomas Fox, Senior Counsel of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, asking them to “weigh-in” with the EPA on CR 595. (Exhibit 1).

EPA must determine whether to uphold its original objections to proposed County Road 595 under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), pursuant to its supervisory authority over Michigan’s delegated wetlands permitting program. Tom may remember that during the August 30, 2011 meeting at EPA Denise Keehner of EPA’s office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds definitively reiterated EPA’s position and stated that the haul road would not happen.
Thus, this letter is to request, respectfully, that you weigh-in as soon as possible with the EPA on its decision.

The MCRC complains about Farwell’s use of the word “definitively” here and casts the 2011 meeting in a sinister light:

on August 30, 2011, a very different type of meeting regarding CR 595 took place at USEPA Headquarters in Washington, DC. MCRC was neither invited to nor informed of the meeting. In attendance (as far as is known at the present time) were top USEPA officials, Congressional staff, KBIC representatives, and a prominent environmental activist opposed to the construction of CR 595. It further appears that USEPA made no formal record of the meeting.

Without a formal record, it’s impossible to know what transpired at this meeting, and if the complaint is going to rely on Farwell’s memory of the conversation, then it should also take into account her intentions in paraphrasing and recounting it, one year after it took place. The language here — “a very different type of meeting,” “neither invited nor informed,” “as far as is known at the present time,” “no formal record” — doesn’t help in that regard, and it’s meant to suggest that conjurations were already afoot.

It’s clear the MCRC was not included in some discussions at EPA. There’s nothing extraordinary or illicit about that. All concerned parties had been meeting with and petitioning the EPA for several years at this point. The complaint is still a long way from proving that the EPA “surreptitiously met with a number of environmental activists vocally opposed to the road,” and an even longer way from proving that there was anything like an anti-mining coalition assembled in secret at the offices of the EPA.

In an ironic twist, these allegations of secrecy and whispering behind closed doors may come back to haunt the MCRC: at a Marquette County Board of Commissioners meeting this month, the Marquette County Road Commission itself faced accusations that it had violated the Open Meetings Act in planning to bring its suit against the EPA. Public officials who intentionally violate that act are ordinarily fined and incur other liabilities; in this case, there would be some eating of words as well.

By November 28, 2012, the EPA had, in fact, “decided against the proposed haul road,” as Farwell puts it in the email she sent along with the letter to Abramson and Fox. The EPA had entered objections to the Woodland Road Application (in March, 2010) and announced their objections to CR 595 (in March, 2012).  Even so, a Fall 2012 public meeting held by the EPA “in Marquette…for more input” had Farwell worried. She was not at all confident the EPA would uphold its original objections to the haul road.  The matter was still far from being “definitively” settled.

Whatever reassurances Farwell was given at that 2011 meeting — or thought she had been given, or recalled having been given, one year later — were clearly at risk of getting lost in the bureaucratic shuffle. The purpose of her letter is to prevent that.

There is nothing surprising in all this. Those watching new mining developments in the Upper Peninsula are constantly having to chase after the EPA and demand that the regulator step in and do its job.

Jeffery Loman, a member of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and a former federal regulator, has repeatedly put the EPA on notice and complained of the agency’s failure to enforce the Clean Water Act.

In May of this year, the grassroots environmental group Save the Wild UP filed a petition with the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board, arguing that Eagle Mine was issued the wrong regulatory permit. The appeal requested that the EPA require Eagle Mine to obtain a Clean Water Act permit in order to protect the Salmon Trout River and other surface waters from the discharge of mining effluent. The Appeals Board did not contest the facts put forward in the petition, but dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. They hardly proved themselves to be staunch allies.

So watchdogs and environmental groups, too, have reason to gripe about the EPA and often feel powerless in the face of bureaucratic inertia and ineptitude. Laura Farwell herself seems to have felt that way, and that’s why we find her asking Abramson and Fox for help. The MCRC complaint exaggerates her influence at the EPA when it describes her as “a prominent environmental activist.” The epithet is used here to create the misleading impression that within the offices of EPA Region 5 and the confines of Marquette County there are political opponents with resources to match the power of multi-billion dollar, multinational mining companies.

Laura Farwell and her husband Frank moved to the area in 2006 from Madison, Wisconsin. They are members of the St. Paul Episcopal Church and participate, along with their son Cody, in the church’s Earth Day tree plantings. The couple donated some money to the UP Land Conservancy. Farwell has also organized events for the Cedar Tree Institute, which works to bridge “faith communities and environmental groups.” (She is described on the Institute’s site  as “a concerned mother and local citizen.”) She is thanked for “working quietly behind the scenes” in a 2011 Earth Keeper TV video on the environmental risks posed by the Eagle Mine; and she’s copied along with many other local citizens in a Google Group post dated April 9, 2012, urging people to comment on CR 595 before the public comment period is closed.

Farwell’s commitments to land conservation are pretty clear, and while the complaint asks us to recoil in horror at the phrase “prominent environmental activist,” cooler heads are just as likely to be impressed by Farwell’s dedication to the people around her and the place where she lives. Maybe that dedication is all it takes to be a prominent environmental activist in the view of the Marquette County Road Commission.

Some locals, on the other hand, are legitimately concerned that nationally and internationally prominent environmentalists — like Bill McKibben, George Monbiot, Naomi Klein and their ilk — ignore the current situation around Lake Superior, or fail to give it the serious attention it deserves. National media have barely taken notice. Farwell herself admits that to the great and powerful in Washington DC “the proposed haul road may seem like some little back trail in the middle of nowhere,” but she urges that it will cut through “critical wetlands resources” and “enable the industrializing of this rural Great Lakes watershed by international mining interests.”

Farwell’s letter tries to create some urgency around the CR 595 issue by putting the road in context and specifying whose interests would be served by the industrializing of the region. A serious assessment of CR 595 would significantly widen the lens, taking into account the cumulative effects of all the new mining activities around Lake Superior: all leasing, exploration, development and active mining throughout northern Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Ontario. Otherwise, we miss the big picture, and without that perspective, it’s just too easy to parcel out the land, the water, and the future of the region to the highest bidders.

The MCRC complaint, too, places CR 595 in the context of “mining and economic development in the Great Lakes region” in a few places, but only to make the specious argument that those who oppose or question the road are opposed to mining and therefore opposed to the region’s prosperity. These are the ideological leaps the complaint makes. Those who don’t make these leaps are called activists or anti-mining obstructionists. That is a political, not a legal argument.

It’s never too late to have a serious discussion of what sustainable economic development and true prosperity for the Great Lakes region might look like. How might we best organize our lives together in this place? is a fundamental political question. But at this juncture, it appears, the MCRC can’t afford to let that conversation happen. This lawsuit is an attempt to shut it down and stifle dissent. Where business leads, society must obediently follow. To question this order of things, as Laura Farwell seems to have repeatedly done, quietly, behind the scenes, is to commit some kind of nefarious act.

This is where the attitude on display in this complaint gets worrisome. With this lawsuit, the MCRC pretends to have the political authority to direct economic development in the region (not just to build and repair roads). But that is only pretense, and things in Marquette County are not as they appear. The public still does not know who is funding the Road Commission lawsuit, what they stand for and what they expect in return for their support. The real powers lurk behind the scenes.

#501c4 #antiMining #BillMcKibben #CedarTreeInstitute #CleanWaterAct #corporatePoliticalActivity #corruption #CountyRoad595 #CR595 #EagleMine #EarthDay #environmentalEthics #environmentalPolitics #environmentalism #EPA #GeorgeMonbiot #JefferyLoman #LauraFarwell #LundinMining #LynnAbramson #MarquetteCounty #MarquetteCountyRoadCommission #MarquetteCountyRoadCommissionVEPA #MCRCVEPA #mining #NaomiKlein #OpenMeetingsAct #politicalAuthority #politics #power #SaveTheWildUP #secrecy #StandUP_ #ThomasFox #TomCasperson #Water