BBBruce @Didaho@qoto.org

Prime minister suggests court cases won’t bring peace between Israel and Palestine, as Penny Wong sets off for a trip to the Middle East

Several Liberal MPs share advertisements on Facebook lobbying against changing the date after Woolworths’ decision to pull national merchandise

Hasel Liu is a single father, and one of the thousands of faces of Queensland's drastically deteriorating homelessness crisis.

For the second time in five years, millions of fish suffocated in the Darling River. This was not a natural disaster – it’s our doing

Greens secure deal to block coal and gas projects from Labor’s $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, but safeguard negotiations remain stalled.

About 150 free tickets to sports, shows and hospitality have been given to politicians since the 2019 election, according to analysis

The Tesla and Twitter chief blasted media outlets for dropping Scott Adams' cartoon following Adams' racist rant against Black people.

Attached: 1 image Three eminent climate scientists have published an important article that is both an analysis of the present climate emergency and a call to action directed at their colleagues in the scientific establishment. Although I've quoted extensively from the article, what you'll see here leaves out most of the details. I *strongly* urge you to read the whole thing. Let's get started... _______________________ The threats of climate change are the direct result of there being too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it follows that we must stop emitting more and even remove some of it. This idea is central to the world’s current plan to avoid catastrophe. In fact, there are many suggestions as to how to actually do this, from mass tree planting, to high tech direct air capture devices that suck out carbon dioxide from the air. The current consensus is that if we deploy these and other so-called “carbon dioxide removal” techniques at the same time as reducing our burning of fossil fuels, we can more rapidly halt global warming. Hopefully around the middle of this century we will achieve “net zero”. This is the point at which any residual emissions of greenhouse gases are balanced by technologies removing them from the atmosphere. This is a great idea, in principle. Unfortunately, in practice it helps perpetuate a belief in technological salvation and diminishes the sense of urgency surrounding the need to curb emissions now. We have arrived at the painful realisation that the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier “burn now, pay later” approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar. It has also hastened the destruction of the natural world by increasing deforestation today, and greatly increases the risk of further devastation in the future. To understand how this has happened, how humanity has gambled its civilisation on no more than promises of future solutions, we must return to the late 1980s, when climate change broke out onto the international stage... _______________________ The bulk of their article fits in this gap, giving us a history of efforts to understand how we might combat climate change and the rise of support for the idea of achieving "net zero." Now to the conclusion, and the call to action... _______________________ In principle there is nothing wrong or dangerous about carbon dioxide removal proposals. The problems come when it is assumed that these can be deployed at vast scale. This effectively serves as a blank cheque for the continued burning of fossil fuels and the acceleration of habitat destruction. The only way to keep humanity safe is the immediate and sustained radical cuts to greenhouse gas emissions in a socially just way. As scientists, we are taught to be sceptical, to subject hypotheses to rigorous tests and interrogation. But when it comes to perhaps the greatest challenge humanity faces, we often show a dangerous lack of critical analysis. In private, scientists express significant scepticism about the Paris Agreement, BECCS, offsetting, geoengineering and net zero. Apart from some notable exceptions, in public we quietly go about our work, apply for funding, publish papers and teach. The path to disastrous climate change is paved with feasibility studies and impact assessments. Rather than acknowledge the seriousness of our situation, we instead continue to participate in the fantasy of net zero. What will we do when reality bites? What will we say to our friends and loved ones about our failure to speak out now? The time has come to voice our fears and be honest with wider society. Current net zero policies will not keep warming to within 1.5°C because they were never intended to. They were and still are driven by a need to protect business as usual, not the climate. If we want to keep people safe then large and sustained cuts to carbon emissions need to happen now. That is the very simple acid test that must be applied to all climate policies. The time for wishful thinking is over. _______________________ One more look at those crucial two sentences: "Current net zero policies will NOT keep warming to within 1.5°C because they were never intended to. They are driven by a need to protect business as usual, NOT the climate." Again, please do read the full article. You can find it here -- https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368 #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency #GlobalWarming #Science @jamesdyke@mastodonapp.uk