for - climate crisis - 5 deg C could reproduce similar levels of catastrophes as those in early earth history

for - quote - exceeding 2 Deg C may result in a billion deaths - Joshua Pearce

quote - exceeding 2 Deg C may result in a billion deaths - Joshua Pearce - (see below) - If warming reaches or exceeds 2 °C this century, - mainly richer humans will be responsible for killing roughly 1 billion mainly poorer humans - through anthropogenic global warming, - which is comparable with involuntary or negligent manslaughter.

for - quote - Michael Mann - quote - a Second Trump presidency - polycrisis - politics and climate crisis - climate mitigation strategy - voting in 2024 U.S. election - adjacency - Michael Mann - 2nd Trump presidency - exceeding planetary boundaries - exceeding 1.5 Deg C - Gen Z voting

adjacency - between - Michael Mann - 2nd Trump presidency - exceeding planetary boundaries - exceeding 1.5 Deg C - Trump's presidency is existential threat to humanity - Gen Z voting - 2024 election - adjacency statement - Michael Mann's quote " A second Trump term is game over for the climate - really" applies to the 2024 election if Trump becomes the Republican nominee. - Trumps dismal environmental record in his 2016 to 2020 term speaks for itself. He would do something similiar in 2025 if he were the president. G - Given there are only 5 years and 172 days before we hit the dangerous threshold of burning through all the carbon budget for humanity, - https://climateclock.world/ - It is questionable whether Biden's government alone can do enough, but certainly if Trump won the 2024 election, his term in office would create a regression severe enough to put the Paris Climate goal of staying within 1.5 Deg C out of reach, and risk triggering major planetary tipping points - A Biden government is evidence-based and believes in anthropogenic climate change and is already taking measures to mitigate it. A Trump government is not evidence-based and is supported by incumbent fossil fuel industry so does not have the interest of the U.S. population nor all of humanity at heart. - Hence, the 2024 U.S. election can really determine the fate of humanity. - Gen Z can play a critical role for humanity by voting against a government that would, in leading climate scientists Michael Mann's words, be game over for a stable climate, and therefore put humanity and unimaginable risk. - Gen Z can swing the vote to a government willing to deal with the climate crisis over one in climate denial so voting activists need to be alerted to this and create the right messaging to reach Gen Z - https://hyp.is/LOud7sBBEe6S0D8itLHw1A/circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/41-million-members-gen-z-will-be-eligible-vote-2024

• for: quote - Johan Rockstrom, quote - uncertainty at 1.5 Deg C for years

• quote: Johan Rockstrom

  • now we are facing a high risk of overshooting 1.5°C - at best - for several decades. Currently, we must admit that we do not know what the consequences are of such an overshoot, i.e., we do not know how long time the big tipping point systems - like the Gulf Stream or the Coral Reef systems, can cope with high risk temperatures above 1.5°C.

• from:LinkedIn Post shared by Phoebe Coyne on low economic growth can help achieve staying under 1.5 Deg C.

• for: climate solutions - low economic growth, Jason Hickel,

• for: 1.5 Deg C target - 50/50 chance

• comment

  • What most people don't recognize and pay attention to is 50/50 chance that is part of the 1.5 Deg C target.
  • The world is up in arms about the 1.5 Deg C target when it ONLY GIVES US A 50/50 CHANCE!
  • These are not great odds! In fact, THESE ODDS ARE TERRIBLE! What if you were given those chances in your cancer treatment? You would be concerned, wouldn't you?
  • So what would an intervention closer to 90% chance of staying under 1.5 Deg C look like? If people consider today's intervention impossible, then a 90% chance would be beyond impossible. This is the nature of the challenge we face!

• for: 3 Deg C world - catastrophic

• for: do people know? - 50% chance, 1.5 Deg. C target - is still a crap shoot

• new trailmark: do people know?

• do people know?: 50% chance

  • the well known 1.5 Deg C. target, which currently seems almost impossible to achieve, is still a crap shoot! There is a 50% chance that if be we achieve it, we can still trigger very harmful impacts like tipping points

• for: question - SONEC alignment to earth system boundaries

• question

  • Stop Reset Go's objective is to find global community partners who can help motivate a local community strategy aligned with the tight timeframe to stay under 1.5 Deg C.
  • Is SONEC open to working on a strategic to empower communities in this way?
  • We can offer it as an optional framework that the community can integrate into their final framework

• for: quote - staying under 1.5 Deg C

• quote: staying under 1.5 Deg C

  • It may be that the climate denialists, even in the 1980s, knew this very well.
  • They denied global heating because they saw it meant social and political change on a scale never seen before.
  • An economic system that had made millions rich and billions at least comfortable would collapse.
  • For those who’ve benefited from the system, death is less frightening than poverty.

• for: stats - staying under 1.5 Deg C

• stats: staying under 1.5 Deg C

  • is equivalent to shutting down the economies of China, the US, India, Japan and Russia

• for: 4 Deg world, William Rees,

• for: visualizations - sea level rise at 3 Deg C

• comment

  • Look to canal cities like Venice or Amsterdam for inspiration because if it cities are salvagable, parts of them will become canal cities.

• for: stats - oil and gas industry - steep drop in production

• stats - oil and gas industry - steep drop in production

  • no new fields can be developed to meet a 1.5 Deg C scenario
  • any new developments face the certain risk of being a stranded asset
  • by 2040, 7 million less barrels of oil are produced each day to meet a 1.5 Deg C scenario

• for: stats - fossil fuel industry - valuation in a 1.5 Deg C world

• stats: fossil fuel industry - valuation in a 1.5 Deg C world

  • current 2023 valuation: 6 trillion USD
  • current NDCs met (short of a 1.5 Deg C world): 4.5 trillion USD
  • 1.5 Deg C world: 2.4 trillion USD

• for: Nationally Determined Contributions insufficient to meet 1.5 Deg C, NDC insufficient to meet 1.5 Deg C

• stats: climate change - NDC

  • current NDCs
    • 45% reduction in fossil fuel usage by 2050
  • NDCs to meet 1.5 Deg C
    • 75% reduction in fossil fuel usage by 2050

• for: staying within 1.5 Deg C - elites - lifestyle changes - property and building

• example:

  • Vancouver, B.C. has artificially inflated property market
  • Local Vancouver city government does not want to change bylaws that advantage elites
  • Climate change equity issues need to become part of the argument

• reference

  • https://www.straight.com/city-culture/why-did-city-council-vote-to-keep-shaughnessy-for-mansion-owning-elite

• for: .5 deg c - chances
• comment
  • In Johan’s interview with Kevin Anderson, he articulates that when we account for:
    • the conservative nature of IPCC, which means it doesn’t account for much outlier, cutting edges research and is already outdated ( ie doesn’t contain tipping point elements, latest research in Antarctica and Greenland (Jason Box)
    • only a 50% chance
    • low likelihood of scaling NET in a meaningful way
    • when just is added to safe boundaries, 1 deg C is the real threshold
  • it already implies that we have at small chance of staying under 1.5 deg C

• for: carbon budget - underestimate, IPCC - underestimate, 1.5Deg C - underestimate, question, question - revise 1.5 Deg C target downwards?

• highlight

  • the 1.5 Deg C target does not account for cascading tipping points. In fact the cascading tipping point research is not accounted for in any of:
    • current climate models
    • global carbon estimates
    • IPCC
  • the implications are that the carbon budget is even smaller than the current number.
  • the implications are that 1.5 Deg C is not the threshold we should be aiming for, but even less. We are now at 1.2 so it has to be 1.3 or 1.4.

• question

  • Given the underestimates, should the target actually be revised downwards to 1.3 or 1.4 deg C?

• for: science-based societal transformation, whole system change, overnight change, 50 year project, radical change
• paraphrase
  • this is not an overnight project
  • radical change would be dangerous
• comment
  • the word "radical" is subjective here
  • how does John view the latest earth system science about the need to reach zero emissions in less than a decade and likely 6 years in order to stay within 1.5 Deg C carbon budget?
    • is that considered radical change or not?

Part One of two-part article - on the relevance of 1.5°C, - unpack the policy gulf that exists between - the Paris Agreement climate goals and - real-world emissions trajectory. - Part one challenges - the techno-optimistic position, - embodied by international leaders and the COP process - as being wilfully ignorant of reality.

Part two, forthcoming - question - is still tenable to claim that 1.5°C is in any meaningful sense ‘alive’. - Question recent suggestions that, - because a 50% chance has all but slipped beyond reach, - 1.5°C is now effectively dead in the water. - Exploration of the dangers of disregarding societal transformations - that could yet deliver an outside chance of 1.5°C.

• Title: Faster than expected

• subtitle: why most climate scientists can’t tell the truth (in public) Author: Jackson Damien

• This is a good article written from a psychotherapist's perspective,

• examining the psychology behind why published, mainstream, peer reviewed climate change research is always dangerously lagging behind current research,
• and recommending what interventions could be be taken to remedy this
• This your of scientific misinformation coming from scientists themselves
• gives minimizers and denialists the very ammunition they need to legitimise delay of the urgently needed system change.
• What climate scientists say In public is far from what they believe in private.
• For instance, many climate scientists don't believe 1.5 Deg. C target is plausible anymore, but don't say so in public.
• That reticence is due to fear of violating accepted scientific social norms,
• being labeled alarmist and risk losing their job.
• That creates a collective cognitive dissonance that acts as a feedback signal
• for society to implement change at a dangerously slow pace
• and to not spend the necessary resources to prepare for the harm already baked in.
• The result of this choice dissonance is that
• there is no collective sense of an emergency or a global wartime mobilisation scale of collective behaviour.
• Our actions are not commensurate to the permanent emergency state we are now in.
• The appropriate response that is suggested is for the entire climate science community to form a coalition that creates a new kind of peer reviewed publishing and reporting
• that publicly responds to the current and live knowledge that is being discovered every day.
• This is done from a planetary and permanent emergency perspective in order to eliminate the dangerous delays that create the wrong human collective behavioural responses.

• The author suggests 5 different steps that will enable and empower scientists to tell the truth at scale:
  • 1. Admit that rigid adherence to their academic methods, in this astonishingly rapid context, leads directly to their failure to communicate the truth. For one thing, it is widely held on the scientific community that staying under 1.5 Deg. C is no longer plausible.
  • 1. Form a unified global coalition. Work with communications and psychology experts to present as accurate and as current information as possible
  • 1. Coalition takes actions to announce a permcrisis requiring responding to new live information in real time, bot wait every 7 years for the next IPCC report

• Russian war may increase usage of fuels
• this could make reaching the 1.5 Deg C target more difficult

• climate change actions
• Most of the climate actions are moving in the right direction.
• but they just aren’t aggressive enough yet to achieve the 1.5 C target.
• right direction, wrong speed

• meeting 1.5 Deg C goal is not plausible.
• future scope and pace of social transformation towards climate action is crucial to meet the target

!- first boundary : 1.5 deg C is a physical boundary - we cannot it it we want to retain a planet safe for human civilization - “ If the world breaches 1.5C, we are likely to trigger at least five tipping points, including the irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet and loss of the world’s tropical coral reef systems. This will be devastating for future generations. It will literally change the world, and yet every month we use 1% of the remaining carbon budget for 1.5ºC.” From earth commission website: https://earthcommission.org/news/earth-commission-news/pioneering-science-reveals-set-of-earth-system-boundaries-that-can-secure-a-safe-and-just-planet-for-all/

!- 1.5 deg C boundary : at risk of exceeding in the next decade

!- key takeaway : time remaining to decarbonize to 1.5 Deg C limit - 9.5 years remaining referenced to Nov 2022 - consuming roughly 1% of remaining 380 Gigaton budget every month, or about 11 % every year.