It was good you spoke truth to the R4 audience. It was disappointing that Amol failed to dig into the ideas you put forward regarding the centrality of equity. That last bit felt rushed. I think were he to interview you for his "Radical" podcast, there could be time to elucidate the reality we face.

🧵 "In the UK the top ten percent of energy users use five times more than the bottom ten percent. So equity is absolutely at the heart of the climate agenda. Until we start to have that dialogue, about the deep inequities in our society, we will continue to fail on climate change." - Kevin Anderson.

Many thanks for the kind comment - really appreciated.

Refreshing to hear this on a mainstream news programme. A great interview from Kevin that directly addresses the issues of COPs, climate, equity and how we choose to spend our wealth as a nation. 👍

Your quick listen for today : About 7 minutes of good sense from @kevinclimate.bsky.social here on COP 30 etc. HT @leedstours.bsky.social

Brilliant interview. Such a relief to hear the situation spelt out so clearly - both the climate problem and social inequalities.

Short interview on the BBC Today programme with Amol Rajan, discussing the upcoming Brazil COP and how the so-called “cost of living crisis” is being (mis)used by leaders and high emitters to avoid taking meaningful action on climate change. Starts at 2.36.30. www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/...

Absolutely fantastic contribution by @kevinclimate.bsky.social on Radio4's Today program this morning. Pointing out that tackling the climate challenge without tackling social and economic inequity -both on a national and international level- is an illusion. Expensive, futile window dressing.

Climate crisis is an *equity* crisis. Strong main message from @kevinclimate.bsky.social Professor of Energy & Climate Change, University of Manchester #R4Today: www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/... at 2:36:35 in the 3-hour programme

Important message on inequity and entitlement from @kevinclimate.bsky.social on #radio4 #Today this morning. It’s so pertinent this morning as we hear about the shareholder vote at a car company.

Interesting to see those plots for a nation’s total carbon footprint, including consumption-based emissions & international aviation/shipping. It’s often claimed the UK has halved its emissions since 1990, but add these other sources & that drop falls to just 20%, or around 0.6% per year on average.

15,000 scientists warn of socio-economic collapse. Yet nearly half of Brits think climate change won’t affect them. This gulf in perception is why we’re staging the National Emergency Briefing on the #climate & #nature crisis. Has your MP confirmed they’ll be there? #TimeToStepUp #NEB

“The importance of viewing climate denial as a defence of modernity is to understand that anti-environmentalists have got something right: there is something fundamentally incompatible between the idea of environmental limits and foundational aspects of the modern world-view.” My piece in Resilience

In case of interest @climateofgavin.bsky.social @climategeorge.bsky.social @kevinclimate.bsky.social @marchudson.bsky.social @katharinehayhoe.com @billmckibben.bsky.social @volts.wtf

Short comment on 'carbon trading' climateuncensored.com/what-role-fo... Paris 1.5°C needs >20% cuts in global emissions every year - starting now! For Paris 2°C, it’s ~8%. Which country/company/institution can exceed these rates? Only those that do have any real “emission space” for carbon trading.

It seems what you are saying is that distance will increasingly have consequences for those who don't take it into account in their life planning. That seems a fair read of the climate situation.

That's fate. Things can't go on as they are.

It's a huge literature: but this is a good entry point: "Is Green Growth Possible?" www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

"At the heart of the carbon trading mechanism is the falsehood that green growth, coupled with the politics of business-as-usual, can align with the Paris temperature and equity commitments. This represents a large-scale deception, facilitated by a community of experts … and an acquiescent media."

I see context as being critical here. In isolation, news is neither good nor bad; such judgments require context. Often, context is deliberately omitted by those trying to promote a particular viewpoint or agenda, that is, by those who prefer to mislead rather than inform the debate.

Who am I “sponsored by"? I work ~35–40 hours a week for an annual pre-tax salary of £27k from the University of Manchester. I take no income from consultancy, legal work, or writing - & often cover my own travel costs. No paid side gigs. No corporate largesse. Independence matters.

When you see the cold numbers -- 8% cuts in emissions needed per year, every year, from now -- it's clear that even 2° is a fantasy (Emissions only fell 5% during covid, when much of the world economy shut down)

The hard numbers do paint a very different picture to the optimistic & upbeat claptrap that typically masquerades as reasoned debate. I made the point about 2°C & Covid in climateuncensored.com/talk-at-the-... - though used the 7% figure there which is from the start of 2025 (rather than 2026).

"in essence, the expert community is doing the work of corporations like Exxon, maintaining the status quo at the expense of genuine progress."

I see context as being critical here. In isolation, news is neither good nor bad; such judgments require context. Often, context is deliberately omitted by those trying to promote a particular viewpoint or agenda, that is, by those who prefer to mislead rather than inform the debate.

Feel massively conflicted about telling "good news" stories about climate tbh. Renewables surpassing coal for electricity is amazing, but it's not nearly enough.

So the #UNFCCC executive secretary is doubling down on #GreenGrowth as the (only?) way forward for global climate action. And I thought things couldn't get worse... 🤦‍♂️ www.theguardian.com/environment/...

Short comment on 'carbon trading' climateuncensored.com/what-role-fo... Paris 1.5°C needs >20% cuts in global emissions every year - starting now! For Paris 2°C, it’s ~8%. Which country/company/institution can exceed these rates? Only those that do have any real “emission space” for carbon trading.

Be interesting to hear Prof David Lee’s (MMU) view on this. I got the impression it was much more challenging than simply changing altitude? Typically lowered altitude means denser air & hence more fuel & CO2. So swaps short-lived v.high warming contrails & cirrus for lower warming v.long lived CO2?

See 👆 — Conclusion on aviation: "Rather than gambling on future breakthroughs that may never materialise, policymakers should pursue immediate demand-reduction strategies & support a just transition …" @kevinclimate.bsky.social @stucap.bsky.social @cityatlas.bsky.social @parkewilde.bsky.social

Just published, in Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences: "Flight from reality: sustainable aviation, Jet Zero, and the technofix" Open access: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.... Screen shot:

It'd be interesting to read a paper that supports your frequent flyer assertion Anecdotally, as an xFrequent flyer for work and hols (80's/90's) I took a minimal number of flights to see family 15% take 70% of all UK flights ≈80% of the world's population has never flown shorturl.at/74fTp

Attached is a suggestion I made several years ago. It would need to be part of a broader package, including eliminating first & business class, & ensuring even the first flight incurs the same tax & carbon costs as other fuels do. Aviation remains heavily dependent on its highly privileged status

If we're serious about aligning aviation with even a weak interpretation of Paris, frequent flyer levies must rise geometrically, as your data suggests. Modest increases won't cut it, we need steep, immediate reductions in flight numbers & that means prices frequent flyers simply can’t afford.

Flying is the fastest fun way to burn the planet A #FrequentFlyerLevy is an easy fix 1st flight= normal price 2nd= 2× 3rd= 4× 4th= 8× 5th= 16x 6th= 32x 7th= 64x ..and so on An incentive not to fly would round this off A simple fair fix for privileged emissions Credit: @kevinclimate.bsky.social

I think it's both: carmakers produce SUVs, and middle- to upper-class people buy them; elites have car collections. High-level politicians fly frequently, but they also believe that airport enlargement and incoming overtourism 'grow the economy' - it's both systemic and personal.

7/ A crucial paper by Isak Stoddard, @kevinclimate.bsky.social, @stuartjritchie.bsky.social @wimcarton.bsky.social et al. stress that a key reason for past climate inaction is a lack of sufficient societal action on carbon reduction is the 'scarcity of plausible imaginaries'.

Thanks. I read OP. I agree entirely. I stopped in April 2007. I was teaching climate in schools & realised acting in accordance with my words was paramount. However, a few prominent climate scientists are hostile to the view & block on sight. @kevinclimate.bsky.social was (& is) an inspiration.

Thanks for reminding me of this. Sadly, 6years on we are in a much worse starting position than we were even then. The allure of fluff, nonsese & downright lies has not changed the physics - & it never will. Today the emissions are higher & the budgets much smaller! nitter.poast.org/anlomedad/st...

IPCC Chef Jim Kea saß 2019 mal mit @kevinclimate.bsky.social vor der Klimakommission vom UK Parliament. Kannte Kea vorher nich. Aber die Grimassen, die er schnitt bzw. ostentativ versuchte zu vermeiden, wenn Kevin redete, sagen schon alles. 2 Twitter posts mit Clips: nitter.poast.org/anlomedad/st...

I get your point. My concern from a UK perspective is that the v.wealthy minority are both disproportionately responsible for the UK’s discretionary emissions - and control the resources, land & even the labour of much of our obscenely unequal society, resources urgently needed for decarbonisation.

"Investing in Gatwick expansion is a choice. It is a choice to prioritise frequent flyers over repairing the UK’s broken transport system, strengthening the NHS, or investing in climate resilience. More flights mean more emissions, worsening climate change for everyone."

Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) plays the same role in aviation as CCS/BECCS/DACCS play for other fossil-fuelled sectors: more a stalling tactic than solution. Good engineers work on SAF, but CEOs/politicians/etc deliberately mis-sell their role in mitigation. climateuncensored.com/gatwick-expa...

But it’s essential the little people get to hear the pearls of wisdom from these intellectual & moral titans. Sadly (from experience), this elitist thinking is widespread amongst the great & good. Furthermore, they choose to travel business/first class to avoid contamination from the hoi polloi.

Was there any serious discussion of the one, or even two, order-of-magnitude gap in individuals emissions? Climate discourse often overlooks a key point from Piketty’s analysis: most emissions are discretionary & concentrated among a relatively small, & relatively affluent share of the population.

Absolutely spot on. Highlights the absolutely limitations of centrism and techno-optimism. I've said it before....their interview was the head of the CCC was one of the most depressing hours nonespeak I've ever heard.

📢 Britain faces a climate & nature emergency. On 27 Nov, top experts will brief 800+ leaders from politics, business, culture, faith & media. An unfiltered overview of the latest threats & solutions. Only by facing it can we rise to the challenge. Check if your MP is coming: www.nebriefing.org

The established ‘system’ maintaining homeostasis.

Just look at Transport Sec speech to aviation sector earlier this year. Message is expand as much as you like. Target is capacity to have just under 500m passengers using UK airports by 2050 and achieve so-called "net zero" leaving 20m tonnes of emissions to be cleaned up somehow or other.