George MonbiotVerified account

Well done Twitter - the BBC has now dropped that ridiculous list of "positive" aspects of our global catastrophe. But two questions remain: why did it think this fossil fuel propaganda was an appropriate teaching tool, and why did it ignore previous requests to change it?

Not to mention "new tourist destinations becoming available". Birmingham-on-Sea?

And, apparently, "warmer temperatures could lead to healthier outdoor lifestyles". FFS

Here is one of the "positive" aspects of the collapse of our life support systems it lists: "more resources, such as oil, becoming available in places such as Alaska and Siberia when the ice melts". Are they actually trying to misdirect and bamboozle GCSE students?

The BBC has a long and disgraceful history of both-sidesing the greatest threat to life on Earth. Every so often, it puts out a memo claiming it has got its act together. Then it fails again. People who make this content believe "neutrality" = impartiality. It's the opposite.

This is what @bbcbitesize is teaching our children about climate breakdown. I'm sorry, but it's an absolute disgrace. You could come away thinking: "on balance, it sounds pretty good". It could have been written by Exxon. (h/t: @NickShepley) https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zcn6k7h/revision/5 …

Some photos of the astonishing restoration works, done by hand, by the people of Tigray. Who are now being deliberately starved by the Ethiopian and Eritrean armies.https://twitter.com/Hintsaweezy/status/1410137249098969090 …

Every death from hunger is on them. A great crime - perhaps the greatest anywhere so far this century - is being perpetrated. And, just as in the approach to the 1984 famine, we look the other way. Why isn't this in the headlines, everywhere?

And this beautifully restored, revegetated land is now being attacked from all sides. The Ethiopian and Eritrean armies have destroyed grain stores, turned back food convoys, killed oxen, stolen farm implements and ordered farmers on pain of death not to till their fields.

The same thing has happened across the region. Every fit person provides 20 days of community labour per year to restore the land. The programme has a strong sense of local ownership and enthusiasm. It's used around the world as an example of best practice.

Because this restoration required a vast amount of human labour. It simply couldn't have happened with a small population. People have shifted, by hand, on steep slopes, millions of tonnes of rock and soil, making terraces, bunds and ponds, stopping gulley and sheet erosion.

Tigray is greener now than at any time since 1868 (when records began). It has more wildlife, more trees, more vegetation, less erosion, better crop yields. And the indicators are best where the rural population is greatest. Why?

Let's not hear a word from the Malthusians who might be tempted to blame this manufactured famine on "population". The rise in crop production in Tigray has easily outstripped the rise in human numbers. Fascinatingly, land degradation has fallen as the population has risen.

The Nobel committee says the rules forbid it to rescind its prizes. But rules are made by humans and can be changed by humans. Yet again, it finds itself complicit in great crimes, by lending credibility to those who oversee them.