In London #XR rebels supported Norwegian and Sami activists in the global mobilisation at Hartree offices in London, Oslo, Geneva, Hamburg, New York and Melbourne. A letter was delivered and it is hoped that dialogue will now take place. 2/2 @naturogungdom.bsky.social #reddrepparfjord

‼️ BAN OCEAN DUMPING ‼️ Hartree Partners are financing the #Nussir copper mine in #Repparfjord, Northern Norway, a project that will dump 30 million tons of toxic mining waste into a nationally protected salmon fjord. 1/2 @naturogungdom.bsky.social #reddrepparfjord #HartreePartners

Great to hear of another sensible jury! J P Morgan has a long history of greed over morality - it owns Chase Bank, which made $millions supporting Nazi Germany during World war II, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_B... - the section on Controversies

A jury has acquitted 6 medics who smashed the windows of J P Morgan bank to protest against their investments in #fossilfuels Great news!

In short: the #AMOC is weakening, may collapse this century, &even small shifts could trigger abrupt change These tipping points are a major national security blind spot, threatening food, energy &global stability, they must be addressed urgently As argued here by @laurielaybourn.bsky.social et al

8️⃣ "Subjective probability estimates based on expert opinions are useful & indicate a substantial probability of an #AMOC collapse, particularly under high future warming scenarios." Expert assessments suggest a substantial probability of collapse if warming continues. Action now can reduce risk.

7️⃣ "Even if the #AMOC is in the monostable regime, the rate of forcing can still lead to substantial AMOC weakening." Rapid human-driven changes can destabilize the #climate system even if tipping thresholds aren’t formally crossed.

6️⃣ "Freshwater perturbation simulations provide support for the existence of a multistable #AMOC regime in several of the ESMs." Small changes in ocean salinity or heat flux could push the system toward abrupt change

5️⃣ "Because of the possibility of a collapse, the AMOC is one of the most prominent #climate tipping systems, along with the polar ice sheets and the Amazon rainforest." This puts the #AMOC in the same league as the most high-stakes elements of the climate system.

4️⃣ "Proxy records indicate that the #AMOC is currently in its weakest state in more than a millennium." Historical evidence indicates we may already be heading towards critical thresholds.

3️⃣ "There are many indications that the AMOC could weaken much more rapidly than projected in the Sixth Assessment Report" New research suggests the #AMOC might respond faster than current @ipcc.bsky.social assessment projections indicate.

2️⃣ "AMOC strength will decline over the twenty-first century under all SSP scenarios" All future scenarios show weakening of the #AMOC, though the exact magnitude and timing remain uncertain.

1️⃣ "[AMOC] may undergo a transition to a climate-disrupting state within a century under continuing greenhouse gas emissions." The review emphasizes that continued warming could push the #AMOC toward a tipping point this century.

Important new @annualreviews.bsky.social review on #AMOC collapse. 🌊⚠️ 🔗 www.annualreviews.org/content/jour... Here are 8 key takeaways from Dijkstra & van Westen (2026) on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and its risks. 👇🧵

I'm on the go so don't have the quote, but it was the talk Tim Morton had with her in this radio programme that was striking www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m...

9/9 Yet, much of this suffering is preventable. Early warning systems, care networks, and deliberate policy choices can save lives, but only where a politics of care is actively built and maintained. Vulnerability is not fate! Check out the article for more details:

8/9 My article explores how these patterns repeat across the globe, from overheated apartments to flooded rice fields. Political and infrastructural neglect creates predictable vulnerability, turning slow violence into deaths of neglect.

7/9 The question isn’t just “what happened?” It’s: who allowed it? Who could have prevented it? And why did society fail to act, even when the risks were known?

6/9 Donna Haraway offers yet another lens: the Chthulucene. She highlights how humans, ecosystems, and institutions are entangled, so that harm emerges through their interactions, not just from a single cause. 🌱🤝

5/9 Rob Nixon’s idea of slow violence complements this perspective. He argues that environmental harm accumulates slowly and imperceptibly, with its full tragedy rarely seen, such as deadly heatwaves gradually claiming the lives of people in their homes.

4/9 Achille Mbembe’s concept of necropolitics helps explain this. It shows how political and social systems routinely allow some lives to be treated as expendable, even when harm is predictable.

Globally, #climate harms follow patterns. The elderly, the sick, marginalized communities, and the poor are consistently at greater risk. Vulnerability isn’t just exposure, it’s embedded in infrastructure, policy, and social support systems that fail to protect certain groups.

2/9 In Texas, three elderly relatives died in their apartment after a broken air conditioner, chronic illness, and social isolation combined, and no one noticed for days. Extreme heat was the immediate cause, but this tragedy was shaped by much more than temperature.

I’m pleased to share my latest article in @uk.theconversation.com It asks what overheated apartments, flooded rice fields, & invisible policy failures have in common, & how preventable harm becomes the slow violence of necropolitics in the Chthulucene. Here's a short thread on some key points 🧵

The optimist green growther outlook assumes that if we fix the climate system then we're good. It's a complete failure of systemic analysis of planetary systems.

And I'd like to add the most important 'pessimist' point of all: even if we do continue with exponential renewables addition and replace instead of add to ff energy, we're over planetary boundaries in other systems and growing 'green' energy and material throughput will only make that worse.

I feel called out because I solidly agree with the 'pessimist' framing in each of your examples. I have to say I'd call it 'realist' not pessimistic. I retain stubborn optimism that we can still do better, but the optimist framing feels unrealistic given how much faster we need to transition.

11/ Until we name that, this argument will keep looping. I find myself cautious when interpreting these trends: progress exists, but limits are real and urgent, and much more could be done to reduce unnecessary harm.

10/ The optimist–pessimist divide isn’t just about hope or despair It’s about interpreting uncertainty & which risks we consider acceptable when some outcomes are far worse than others Scenario-based projections amplify room for multiple readings depending on the counterfactuals we deem plausible

9/ This matters because climate communication often treats disagreement as a knowledge problem. But many people aren’t confused about the data. They’re weighting momentum vs limits, trends vs risk, improvement vs sufficiency, differently.

8/ Taken together, these graphs show why the debate doesn’t resolve. Optimists tend to read the data dynamically: Are things moving in the right direction? Are reinforcing effects kicking in? Pessimists read it physically: Are we within limits? Is change fast enough to avoid irreversible harm?

7/ Projected warming under current policies O: We’ve moved past worst-case futures. Policy matters; agency shows in the numbers P: 2.5–3°C is devastating. We’ve failed to hold warming to 1.5°C & science shows impacts arriving sooner & hitting harder than models projected. Assumes promises are kept

6/ Global energy investment Optimist: Most new investment now goes to clean energy. Capital is reallocating. The transition is being built. Pessimist: New investment is still being poured into fossil fuels. Capital is actively expanding the system driving the #ClimateCrisis, not just lagging.

5/ Renewables as a share of total energy Opti: This is early exponential growth. As renewables scale, substitution will accelerate. Primary energy understates progress: much fossil energy is wasted Pessi: The denominator matters: fossil energy isn’t shrinking. Additive growth isn’t displacement

4/ Carbon intensity of the economy Opti: The economy emits less CO₂ per unit of output. Efficiency & cleaner power decouple growth from emissions Pessi: Lower carbon intensity can mislead: energy use & demand often rise, so emissions keep growing. Efficiency lowers intensity, yet problem persists

3/ Global CO₂ emissions Optimist: Emissions growth has slowed. Some regions have peaked. Policy and tech are starting to bend the curve. Pessimist: Absolute emissions are still rising. Slower growth isn’t decline. Carbon budgets care about levels, not momentum. CO₂ concentrations keep climbing.

2/ Below are a few familiar #climate graphs. For each one, I’ll sketch: • an optimistic reading • a pessimistic reading Not to flatten disagreement, but to show why different conclusions can follow from the same evidence.

The optimist vs pessimist divide in #climate debates isn’t usually about the data. It’s about how the same graphs are read, what people emphasise, what they discount, and how they interpret pace and stakes. Here’s what I mean 🧵👇

Shot

HUGE moment for the EU car market as battery EVs overtake petrol cars for the first time ever But there's no "natural" demand for EVs amirite? Article by @mollylempriere.carbonbrief.org www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-evs...

Due to British politics and media being totally idiotic and superficial, there's a lot riding on the Gorton & Denton byelection. If Reform win, the govt will be tempted to further water down climate policies. If the Greens win, the reverse could happen. (Apparently Labour are planning to run too)

Scientists have now set the Doomsday Clock to 85 seconds to midnight, the closest it's ever been

11/ Treating this report as a turning point doesn’t just misunderstand history It lets power off the hook by implying the problem was *who* was speaking, rather than what interests were being protected We’ve had warnings, from scientists, environmentalists, & security analysts for a long time!

10/ Politicians igored them because warnings alone do not compel action in the face of organised vested interests. Fossil capital. Extractive industries. Short-term political incentives. Institutional inertia. These were always the real obstacles, not a lack of credibility.

9/ Which brings us to the real lesson, and the part that tends to get quietly skipped. Policy-makers didn’t ignore environmentalists because they were naive or soft. They didn’t ignore security and military analysts because they were idealists. They ignored both.

8/ Again, just a couple of reminders: – Brookings Institute assessments from nearly 20 years ago – Gwynne Dyer’s work on climate and conflict from around the same time. This isn’t a sudden awakening. It’s repetition.

7/ They’ve warned about: – climate-driven migration – state fragility – conflict risks – pressure on food, water, and infrastructure – cascading systemic shocks In other words: the same risks environmentalists and scientists have been pointing to, in different language.

6/ Second annoyance: the false sense of novelty. Yes, security services are warning about ecological and climate risks. But this report is not saying anything new. Security analysts and military thinkers have been flagging these dangers for years - even decades!

5/ Just a few examples from early modern environmental thought, making this case plainly and repeatedly: – Barry Commoner – Rachel Carson – Frank Fraser Darling Different voices, same message: ecological damage is a direct threat to human societies. This was not subtle.