Government Provoked Global Suicide

Governments around the world have discussed solutions to climate change, but not enough are seriously acting to reduce this threat.

From environmentalist Stephen Barlow:

I'd far rather not have to spell out uncomfortable truths, and I have no agenda, other than to stop humanity committing global suicide by ignoring the seriousness of the climate and ecological emergency. If our governments had done what they'd promised to do, after these UN Environment Summits I've highlighted, there would be no need for me to spell any of this out. But the thing is, they didn't take any meaningful action to change direction. In essence, our governments have not merely carried on with Business as Usual BaU, as if the climate and ecological emergency did not exist, but they are planning to reinforce this globally suicidal policy for the foreseeable future. Hence, why we have a crisis. It's not that the things I'm saying are extreme, it's our governments, which are pursuing radical extremist policy, putting our civilization on course for global suicide and an unliveable future. It's not even just me saying that, but António Guterres [Secretary-General to the UN].  

The whole problem is this: because we are inculcated and brainwashed to believe that our governments are there to protect us, anyone who says they are not doing this is falsely perceived as extreme: [Guterres: 'Climate activists are sometimes depicted as dangerous radicals. But the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels. Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness.'] It's not climate activists or environmentalists who are extreme and radical, but our governments and politicians totally ignoring the scientific evidence, which says for there to be a habitable Earth in the future, we need to profoundly change direction. This is hardly new or original, because this was essentially the outcomes of the first UN Environment Conference and its conclusions, in 1972, 52 years ago. It would have been fine if our governments and politicians, had done what they promised. The whole problem is that our politicians and governments used the very dishonest tactic of promising major action to avert this future crisis, but then carried on with BaU as if this crisis didn't exist. You can't solve such a serious, existential crisis by making hollow promises our leadership apparently didn't mean and then to carry on acting as if this existential crisis did not exist. Yet, this is exactly what course our governments and politicians have placed us on. This is the central problem where governments and politicians self-declare themselves to be our protectors and the voice of moderation, and declare anyone who challenges this false narrative to be an extremist. When it's they who're the extremists. This is all clear-cut and objective. 

Despite our politicians repeatedly coming out with rhetoric, which falsely implies they are trying to keep warming below 1.5°C of warming and to reach Net Zero by 2050, we're actually on course for 3-4°C of warming [16 min video]. I'm using impeccable sources to back up my points, like the UN, the UN Secretary General António Guterres. Those like Professor Kevin Anderson, who is probably the pre-eminent expert in this particular field. Those claiming we can carry on with BaU, and we can fix all the problems inherent in this with technology, are utterly lacking in any cogent explanation of how this is possible. It's faith based optimism contradicted by the evidence.

The big question is how can we challenge this demonstrable false narrative when those trying to plough on with business as usual have all the power, control, and own the media, etc? Where there's a massive contradiction between what they say and what they do. By its very nature, anyone challenging the false narratives peddle by mainstream politicians and governments, falsely appear to be an extremist simply by dint of challenging what is, in reality, extremist policy. Remembering this is the view of António Guterres, not mine. I should not be in this position. We should not be in this position given that our governments made major pledges to address this crisis in 1972 and 1992 but then simply did nothing and carried on with BaU. As I say, there would be no need for this if our governments were acting rationally and making some effort to do what they have previously promised they were going to do.