Ethically Bankrupt Politicians Are Killing The Planet

In a recent conversation with my colleague Magnus L.H. Haslebo the Co-Founder of the Resistance Group Guerilla and the former Head of Communications for the Danish political party, The Alternative, it became clear that while sociopathic corporations’ greed is destroying the planet, it’s the corrupt politicians who are paving the way. This post was previously published in Ready or Not…Climate Change Is Coming For Us.

Ethically Bankrupt Politicians

If you want to believe in fairy tales, go ahead. If you want to believe that a guy named Jack climbed a magic beanstalk to a land high in the sky – be my guest.  But if you believe in an alternate environmental reality, one that rejects science and adheres to a fictitious climate plan called “2050 net zero”, that all but guarantees that we will overshoot our climate targets and put our ecosystems at risk of spiralling out of control…then you need to be removed from any political office that might allow you to influence climate policy.

Whether your views come from ignorance, ideology or you’re just so ethically bankrupt that you’ve allowed billionaire funders to turn you into a tool of corruption, it doesn’t matter, you’ve become a tragic hindrance to addressing our climate emergency. In fact, without science as a guide, you represent an existential threat to life as we know it.

Our Politicians Are Failing Us

Both Liberal and Conservative politicians are failing us right across the planet. They may sound different on some issues but if you look past the noise, it’s obvious that they’re both beholden to the same billionaires and corporate elite that are leading us towards a systems-driven ecocide. They would like us to believe that they’re honest in their efforts to protect the climate but the science is clear, and you can’t stand behind policies like “2050 net zero” and say that you believe in climate science. Politicians can’t wiggle out of this one.

John Locke who is among the most influential political philosophers of the modern period said that politicians derive their legitimacy as the result of a social contract where people conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government to protect the rights of the people and to promote the public good. When governments fail to do so, the state’s legitimacy comes into question. I believe this is where we are today.

Successful Policies Needs Facts

In the video below, Billionaire investor Nick Hanauer argues for the need to have accurate data from which to build successful policy. He points out that for thousands of years humans believed that the earth was the centre of the Universe and that one who still believes this would do some pretty terrible astronomy. Similarly he argues that a policy maker who incorrectly believes that the rich are job creators and therefore should not be taxed, will do equally terrible policy.When it comes to climate change, not only do we have unanimous science to work with, we also have a clear course of action that comes with a timeline and a horrific picture of the repercussions, if we ignore the evidence. With all the peer reviewed data available you simply can’t be seen as a legitimate politician (or government) if you dismiss the science.

Is 2050 Net Zero Really So Bad?    add a link to my article here below

Perhaps you’re thinking that “2050 net zero” must be a worthy plan as nearly every so-called leader on the planet has embraced it. That’s true, they have, but don’t let that consensus fool you into believing that “2050 net zero” is a meaningful response to climate change. It’s not. It’s a scientific fabrication meant to appease and distract the masses. It’s a watered down political target that is being pushed by billionaires, bankers and fossil fuel companies to ensure that the predatory, exploitive and wasteful system that created our climate crisis remains largely unchanged.

And if you don’t think that ethically compromised politicians are capable of behaving in this way, just remember that these are the same dishonest leaders who in 2015 signed onto the Paris Accords and failed right across the board.

Safety in Numbers

You remember the Paris Agreement, the non-binding agreement with no oversight that required nothing of politicians other than their commitment to give their best efforts to ideally keep emissions below 1.5 and not above 2.0 degrees Celsius. Yes, that’s the one, and we bought it hook line and sinker. It was a politician’s dream, a chance to stand shoulder to shoulder on the world stage and bask in the glory of their leadership without actually having to make any difficult policy decisions. As of November 2020, 194 states and the European Union have signed the Agreement.

But as is often the case, the truth eventually comes out. It didn’t take long for a tidal wave of hollow promises to come crashing down. As of November 2020, every major economy, besides India (due to some questionable accounting), was nowhere near hitting their non-binding targets. But what’s really interesting about this unmitigated failure is that it ensures that no country can be singled out. This whole charade is something that I like to call “immunity via collective failure.”

Deja Vu…Only Worse

Fast forward to today and politicians are using the exact same strategy with “2050 net zero”, only this time the whole exercise is not only dishonest, it’s reckless and dangerous.

The IPCC is very clear on what needs to happen and when, to get our emissions down to a safe level, but apparently the science doesn’t work for the political ambitions of our leaders, so they’ve taken it upon themselves to change the timeline and urgency with which to act. Their approach this time can best be described as “immunity via collective failure” with a sprinkle of “lying by omission” on top. Let me walk you through it.

“Missing” Words Matter

The IPCC’s Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C – Summary for Policymakers, states in section TS.2 Pg. 33 that:

…to achieve the goal of reaching “2050 net zero” and limit a dangerous overshoot of 1.5°C we need to reduce net anthropogenic (human caused) CO2 emissions by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero by 2050.

Did you see what happened? Politicians have conveniently chosen to skip the part that stresses the urgent need to “reduce CO2 emissions by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030…”

This is a huge omission and manipulation of the meaning in the IPCC report. It minimizes the need for urgent and immediate action which is so vital to protecting us from an uncontrolled overshoot of 1.5°C. It’s not, choose your preference A or B, 2030 or 2050; those concepts and dates go together – it’s a linear relationship. A reduction in emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 is on the path to B…”2050 net zero”…that’s how  you get there.

We’re not getting the truth. At best, the whole “2050 net zero” charade is dishonest and at worst, it’s a clear and present danger to life as we know it.

Continued at source…

Related Articles