179 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. Die Biden-Administration hat alle amerikanischen Bundesbehörden angewiesen, bei allen Projekten die Kosten, die durch die globale Erhitzung verursacht werden, mit zu budgetieren. Damit wird eine bisher schon von der Umweltbehörde EPA verwendete Metrik der "social costs of carbon" auf die gesamte Regierungstätigkeit ausgeweitet.Mit einem Budget von ungefähr 600 Milliarden Dollar im Jahr ist die amerikanische Bundesregierung der größte Verbraucher von Gütern und Dienstleistungenn in der Welt. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/21/climate/biden-climate-change-economic-cost.html

  2. Sep 2023
    1. the pathways must have the equity dimension of who really needs to do the heavy lifting here, which is the the rich minority.
      • for: carbon inequality
    2. better health, better security, better economy, secure job, better... Simply a more modern, attractive life.
      • for: Johan Rockstrom - wellbeing economy, wellbeing economy, green growth, degrowth, question, question - Johan Rockstrom - green growth or degrowth?
      • question
        • Does Johan Rockstrom advocate for a green economy or degrowth?
        • He would seem to be arguing for green growth as degrowth, if not done extremely carefully, can result in a drop in wellbeing.
        • How does he see this taking place when the elites perceive that they have the most (at least materially) to give up? Is there a contradiction here?
    3. people generally don't recognize is that forest across the planet has responded in a tremendously helpful way 00:16:29 by absorbing roughly 25% of carbon dioxide from our fossil fuel burning. And we generally talk about this as a positive. "Isn't that fantastic!" But, in reality, it's a stress response.
      • for: carbon sinks, carbon sinks - oceans, carbon sinks - forests, stats, stats, forest carbon sink, stats - ocean carbon sink, question, question - when do carbon sinks turn into carbon sources?
      • stats

        • forests are absorbing 25% of carbon dioxide emissions
        • oceans are absorbing 50% of carbon dioxide emissions
        • these are stressing these carbon sinks
      • question

        • how much longer can they absorb without unintended consequences playing out?
    4. these are not represented in the models, they're not in the global carbon budget estimates, they're not in the IPCC.
      • 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?
    5. there are so many uncertain factors on soil carbon, ocean carbon, ocean heat, ice melt, biodiversity loss, biome tipping points.
      • for: precautionary principle, fossil fuel phase out, carbon budget - uncertainties, carbon budget - underestimate
      • highlight
        • the precautionary principle dictates that the uncertainties in:
          • soil carbon
          • ocean carbon
          • ocean heat
          • ice melt
          • biodiversity loss
          • biome tipping points
        • implies that the any one of these can easily bring our remaining carbon budget down to zero.
      • for: velocar, low carbon transportation
      • Title: The Velomobile as a Vehicle for more Sustainable Transportation
  3. Aug 2023
    1. contacting your city council members running for office yourself donating to projects like black space and getting involved in zoning board meetings that could help change the density and makeup of the 00:20:08 communities where you live
      • for: zoning, city council, re-zoning, low carbon city, walkable city
    1. if you're very poor then you're living in some kind of Wilderness Area you're going to destroy the environment in order to survive let me take for 00:08:05 example Gumby Street National Park in 1960 it was part of the Great Forest built by the late 1980s was a tiny Islander forest and all the hills around were bare more people living there in 00:08:19 the land could support two poor to buy food elsewhere struggling to survive cutting down the trees to make money from charcoal or Timber or to make more land grow more food and that's when it 00:08:33 hit me if we don't help these people these local communities find ways of living without destroying the environment we can't save chimpanzees forests or anything else so we need to 00:08:46 alleviate poverty
      • for: inequality, poverty, W2W, Jane Goodall, socio-ecological system, climate justice, emptiness - example, entanglement - inequality and climate crisis
      • key insight
        • if you're very poor and you're living in some kind of Wilderness Area
          • you're going to destroy the environment in order to survive
          • example: Gumby Street National Park
            • in 1960 it was part of the Great Forest
            • but by the late 1980s was a tiny Islander forest and all the hills around were bare
            • more people living there than the land could support
            • too poor to buy food elsewhere
              • struggling to survive
              • cutting down the trees to make money from charcoal or Timber
              • or to make more land grow more food and
            • that's when it hit me
              • if we don't help these people these local communities find ways of living without destroying the environment
              • we can't save chimpanzees forests or anything else so we need to alleviate poverty
      • comment
        • This is why the inequality crisis is entangled with the climate crisis
    1. why does it in a sense if we think of money as a voting tool why is it that a billionaire has a 00:32:31 billion times more power to decide what society should be like than i do
      • for: voting, power - money, money - voting, inequality, voting - money, equity, voting power - rich
      • paraphrase
      • question
        • if we think of money as a voting tool
          • why does a billionaire have a billion times more power to decide what society should be like than i do?
    1. And where the artists take part in a fantasy of overconsumptionThe place where artists play a distinctive role, exactly like high-level sports athletes, is in the propagation of a certain fantasy.
      • for: W2W, carbon inequality, carbon footprint - 1%, carbon emissions - 1%, luxury advertising, luxury advertising contracts, carbon emissions - luxury goods
      • key insight
        • the elites are often the main popularizers, influencers and propagandists of the fantasy of overconsumption
        • culture of overconsumption
        • such elites have a close tie to the luxury industry via large advertising contracts
        • Media posts critical of the carbon air travel emissions of famous DJ named DJ Snake offers a prime example of a common attitude of privilege and self-righteousness found amongst a number of elites
    2. The Shift Project has estimated that if only 3% of festival-goers attending the Vieilles Charrues Festival come by plane, they account for more than 60% of carbon emissions linked to public transport!
      • for carbon inequality, carbon emissions - air travel, carbon emissions - concerts, stats - air travel - concerts
      • paraphrase
      • stats
        • The Shift Project has estimated that
          • if only 3% of festival-goers attending the Vieilles Charrues Festival come by plane, they account for more than 60% of carbon emissions linked to public transport!
        • Tomorrowland concert - close to 25,000 festival-goers fly in via "party flights"
        • North America Burning Man - 20% of festival goers fly in
        • In general, the largest footprint for famous cultural events is air travel
    3. artists are complicit in
      • for: carbon emissions of the 1%, carbon inequality, carbon emissions - artists, high carbon lifestyle
      • comment
        • top tier entertainers are conditioned to a high carbon lifestyle. This is a challenge to overcome.
        • example given
          • DJ who flew to perform in four different EU cities in the same evening!
    4. Most renowned artists and the trades and professions around them (producers, broadcasters, booking agents, distributors, internet platforms…) are today dependent on hyper-intensive energy-consuming models.
      • for: carbon footprint - music industry, carbon footprint - concerts, carbon footprint - touring
      • paraphrase
        • Most renowned artists and the trades and professions around them
          • producers,
          • broadcasters,
          • booking agents,
          • distributors, internet platforms
          • studios
          • equipment and service providers
        • are today dependent on hyper-intensive energy-consuming models.
        • Music or showbusiness artists, for example, depend more and more on touring and festivals.
        • Namely because with a remuneration of 0,0034 dollars per listened music track,
          • only 1% of music artists receive a minimum wage through streaming and
          • because, in the meantime, sales in the physical media market (CD, vinyl) have collapsed,
            • and streaming has not made up for loss of value.
        • Unsurprisingly, the artists who are most successful at making a living receive the quasi-totality of their revenue from the tours they do via concerts or festivals
          • (which incur high travel carbon footprint)
        • And those have a tendency to increase at an unchecked rate.
        • To attract the largest crowd possible, these artists demand
          • more and more top billings
          • with equally
            • increasing fees and
            • technical requirements.
        • example
          • Coldplay travels with no less than 2 kits of 32 articulated lorries on the road (for their “ecological” tour),
          • Rammstein accounts for
            • almost 100 articulated lorries
            • 7 cargo planes for their tours and
            • burns no less than 1000 litres of heating oil for their pyrotechnical effects at each concert (something the group proudly displays on social media).
      • noteworthy
        • due to loss of product sales, touring and concerts is the only way musicians can make money, and that comes at high carbon emission cost
    5. Culture, a hyper-consumerist sector
      • for: carbon emissions - culture, carbon emissions - cultural sector, carbon footprint - culture,

      • paraphrase

      • stats
        • for France
        • culture and leisure are the third reason for travel after work and shopping
        • watching movies at movie theatre alone is responsible for nearly one million tons of CO2 emissions
        • culture takes up 60% of all downloads on the internet, 80% if porn is included
        • tens of thousands of buildings such as auditoriums are depending on fossil fuels to operate
        • cultural events drive high carbon tourist industry:
          • account for 60% of revenue of hotels and restaurants at the Avignon Festival
          • Louvre's carbon footprint of 3.4 million tons of CO2 emissions are in large part due to air travel of tourists from around the globe
      • for: emissions reduction, bend the curve, TPF, W2W, emissions reduction - cultural sector, bend the curve - cultural sector, TPF - cultural sector, W2W - cultural sector, carbon emissions - cultural sector, carbon inequality

      • comment

        • well written article on the carbon emissions challenges of the cultural sector
        • this is related to the carbon emissions of the luxury industry as well
      • question
        • same question as asked about luxury, since there is overlap with culture industry and luxury
        • Given that the 1% have the same carbon emissions as the bottom half of humanity, does the sustainability impacts of the decarbonization efforts of the luxury aspects of the culture industry measure up to stay under earth system boundaries in time?
      • reference
    1. there's 00:08:43 nothing there that could be secured and here's the important point I think we experienced that we experience it as a sense of lack 00:08:58 that is to say the sense that something is wrong with me something is missing something isn't quite right I'm not good enough and the reality is I think all of us to 00:09:14 some degree have some sense of that some sense of lack even though we might ignore it or cover it up there's there's some sense of that but because it's mostly sort of unconscious in the sense that we don't 00:09:29 really know where it comes from
      • for: sense of lack, sense of self, sense of self and sense of lack, human condition, poverty mentality, alienation, separation, emptiness, emptiness of emptiness, W2W, inequality
      • key insight
        • sense of self is equivalent to
          • sense of lack
          • duality
          • disconnection
          • alienation
          • separation
          • solidification - the opposite of emptiness
      • comment
        • this sense of lack that is intrinsically associated with the sense of self is perhaps the deepest root of our unhappiness
        • this is a key insight for sharing for both those who have too much (the 1%) as well as those who are so materially impoverished and deprived that they are forced to adopt survivalist strategies to stay alive, and if successful, take on a hard edge to survivalism, over-appreciating materialism
        • the same mistake is committed on both end of the disparity spectrum, both groups are still under the illusion that that sense of lack can be filled
    1. Our findings suggest that the share of US$2020-millionaires in the world population will grow from 0.7% today to 3.3% in 2050, and cause accumulated emissions of 286 Gt CO2. This is equivalent to 72% of the remaining carbon budget, and significantly reduces the chance of stabilizing climate change at 1.5 °C.
      • for: millionaire emissions, carbon inequality, inequality, W2W
      • paraphrase
        • Our findings suggest that the share of US$2020-millionaires in the world population will grow
          • from 0.7% today
          • to 3.3% in 2050,
        • and cause accumulated emissions of
          • 286 Gt CO2
          • equivalent to 72% of the remaining carbon budget,
        • and significantly reduces the chance of stabilizing climate change at 1.5 °C.
        • Continued growth in emissions at the top makes a low-carbon transition less likely,
          • as the acceleration of energy consumption by the wealthiest
          • is likely beyond the system's capacity to decarbonize.
          • To this end, we question whether policy designs such as progressive taxes targeting the high emitters will be sufficient.
    1. According to a new study by tourism professor Stefan Gössling, the millionaires will, within just a few decades, be responsible for almost three quarters of carbon dioxide emissions.
      • for: wealth inequality, inequality, carbon inequality, elite emissions, 1% emissions, millionaire emissions
      • According to a new study by tourism professor Stefan Gössling,
        • the millionaires will, within just a few decades, be responsible for almost three quarters of carbon dioxide emissions.
  4. Jul 2023
    1. In addition to their high GHG emissions from consumption, high-SES people have disproportionate climate influence through at least four non-consumer roles: as investors, as role models within their social networks and for others who observe their choices, as participants in organizations and as citizens seeking to influence public policies or corporate behaviour
      • for: high-SES, 1%, W2W, inequality, carbon inequality, elites, billionaires, millionaires, leverage point
      • five high carbon emission areas of high-SES, HNWI, VHNWI
        • consumption
        • investor
        • role model within social networks
        • participants in organizations
        • citizens seeking to influence public policies or corporate behavior
    2. We focus on individuals and households with high socioeconomic status (SES; henceforth, high-SES people) because they have generated many of the problems of fossil fuel dependence that affect the rest of humanity.
      • for: high-SES, 1%, W2W, inequality, carbon inequality, elites, billionaires, millionaires, leverage point
      • definition
        • high-SES
          • high socioeconomic status
          • equivalent to high net worth individual (HNWI) or
          • very high net worth individual (VHNWI)
      • for: carbon inequality, w2w, leverage point - climate change, 1%, inequality, wealth tax
      • title
        • The role of high-socioeconomic-status people in locking in or rapidly reducing energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions
      • authors
        • Kristian S. Nielsen
        • Kimberly A. Nicholas
        • Felix Creutzig
        • Thomas Dietz
        • Paul C. Stern
      • date
      • abstract
        • People with high socioeconomic status disproportionally affect energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions directly
          • through their consumption and
          • indirectly through their financial and social resources.
        • However, few climate change mitigation initiatives have targeted this population segment,
          • and the potential of such initiatives remains insufficiently researched.
        • In this Perspective, we analyse key characteristics of high-socioeconomic-status people and explore five roles through which they have a disproportionate impact on energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions and potentially on climate change mitigation, namely as:
          • consumers,
          • investors,
          • role models,
          • organizational participants and
          • citizens.
        • We examine what is known about their disproportionate impact via consumption and
          • explore their potential influence on greenhouse gas emissions through all five roles.
        • We suggest that future research should focus on strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by high-socioeconomic-status people and to align their
          • investments,
          • organizational choices and
          • actions as social and political change agents
        • with climate change mitigation goals.
      • for: inequality, 1%, carbon inequality private jets, carbon emissions, patriotic millionaires
      • title
        • He’s a millionaire with a private jet. But now he’s selling it for the sake of the environment
      • source
      • date
        • July 13, 2023
      • Stephen Prince, vice-chair of the Patriotic Millionaires – a group of wealthy Americans pushing for higher taxes which also contributed to the report – is giving up his Cessna 650 Citation III.
      • for: inequality, climate justice, wealth tax
      • policy paper
      • title
        • survival of the richest
      • date
        • Jan 16, 2023
      • executive summary
        • Since 2020, the richest 1% have captured almost two-thirds of all new wealth
          • nearly twice as much money as the bottom 99% of the world’s population.
        • Billionaire fortunes are increasing by $2.7bn a day,
          • even as inflation outpaces the wages of at least 1.7 billion workers, more than the population of India.7
        • Food and energy companies more than doubled their profits in 2022,
          • paying out $257bn to wealthy shareholders,
          • while over 800 million people went to bed hungry
        • Only 4 cents in every dollar of tax revenue comes from wealth taxes and
          • half the world’s billionaires live in countries with no inheritance tax on money they give to their children.
        • A tax of up to 5% on the world’s multi-millionaires and billionaires could raise $1.7 trillion a year,
          • enough to lift 2 billion people out of poverty, and fund a global plan to end hunger.
    1. "In the paper we sketch five different roles
      • for: carbon inequality, W2W, leverage point

      • five leverage points

        • consumer.
        • investors
        • lobbyist
        • influencer
        • citizen
    2. "The top 1% use basically a similar amount to the bottom 50% of humanity.
      • for: carbon inequality, w2w
      • comment
        • it would be useful to have the accounting process used to calculate how the top1% emit carbon equivalent to bottom 50% to help us identify areas where interventions can be developed
    1. Wenn die reichsten Menschen in Europa ihren Energieverbrauch auf 170 Gigajoule pro Jahr reduzieren würden, ließen sich allein damit 10% der EU-Emissionen reduzieren - wobei 170 Gigajoule mehr sind, als 80% der europäischen Bevölkerung verbrauchen. Eine neue Studie zeigt das Potenzial von Reduktionen auf der Nachfrageseite vor allem bei Wohlhabenden. Eine bessere Befriedigung grundlegender Energiebedürfnisse von Armen hat dagegen nur geringe Auswirkungen auf die Emissionen. https://www.derstandard.de/story/3000000179254/energiesparen-bei-reichen-kann-erhoehten-verbrauch-bei-armen-kompensieren

      Studie: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-023-01283-y

    1. Guided meditation: The carbon cycle
      • Guided meditation
        • consciousness thinking about its own atomic constituent
      • Carbon cycle meditation

        • to help achieve awareness of our physical connection to the world
      • Comment

        • This is a limited practice as it still depends on conceptual models.
        • An atom is not an object we can directly experience phenomenologically.
        • Rather, it is a conceptual model and through social norm of using it as if it were phenomenologically a directly experienced object, we confuse ideas of phenomena with the phenomena itself
        • One way to determine if it is a fundamental human quality or if it is simply one narrative, is to determine if there are people such an exercise would NOT resonate with?
          • For instance, it would likely not resonate strongly with
            • climate deniers,
            • uneducated people
            • religious fundamentalists
        • to develop a method to reach ALL people, we need to look at even more fundamental commonalities - namely, how we use language to mediate reality
        • Perhaps a BEing journey can consist of two lievels
          • 1st level: conceptual
            • do the BEing journey as described using conventional concepts
          • 2nd level: meta-level
            • observe how you construct the narrative using language
        • it could be good to animate this with AI drawing program
    2. guided meditation to help achieve this awareness of our physical connection to the world around us.
      • comment
        • these guided meditations are interesting because they are one level of our superorganism (consciousness)
          • thinking about a lower level of the same human superorganism
            • carbon molecule that was part of us
            • genetic material that was part of our ancestors going back billions of years
    1. we are left with questions of how to split the burden of collectively staying within the PBs. To know if e.g. a person or a company is absolute environmentally sustainable, we need to know that person’s or the company’s assigned SoSOS. How to determine a person’s or a company’s assigned SoSOS is not only normative, but essentially a question of distributive justice.
      • question
        • how to we split the burden of collectively staying within the PBs?
        • To know if e.g. a person or a company is absolute environmentally sustainable,
          • we need to know that person’s or the company’s assigned SoSOS.
        • How to determine a person’s or a company’s assigned SoSOS is not only normative,
          • but essentially a question of distributive justice.
    1. One option is to cap the top 20% of energy users while allowing those people who use little energy and have poverty-level incomes to be able to increase their consumption levels and improve their quality of life.
      • One energy demand reduction strategy
        • Cap the top 20% of energy users
        • while allowing those people
          • who use little energy and
          • have poverty-level incomes
        • to be able to
          • increase their consumption levels and
          • improve their quality of life.
    2. Cap top 20% of energy users to reduce carbon emissions
      • Title
        • Cap top 20% of energy users to reduce carbon emissions
      • Publication

      • Summary -Consumers in the richer, developed nations will have to accept restrictions on their energy use

        • if international climate change targets are to be met, warn researchers.
        • The big challenge is to identify the fairest and most equitable way
        • that governments can curtail energy use,
          • a process known as energy demand reduction. -The research team analyzed several scenarios to identify a potential solution.
    1. protest and disrupt the “exclusive vacations of wealthy fossil fuel investors and polluters driving the climate crisis
      • comment
        • Disney is an ardent wealth and climate reformer and was protesting the 1%'s use of carbon intensive jet planes.
    1. Der Artikel im Guardian stellt eine neue Studie da, aus der hervorgeht, wie viel von der bereits existierenden Infrastruktur zur Förderung fossiler Brennstoff stillgelegt werden muss, um das 1,5° Ziel zu erreichen. Dabei geht die Autoren davon aus, dass man CO2 nicht realistisch wieder aus der Atmosphäre entfernen kann, und dass das 1,5° Ziel also nur zu erreichen ist, wenn nicht zu viel emittiert wird. Diese Studie fordert also das Gegenteil von den Planungen der fossile Industrien, über der über die der Guardian gerade berichtet hatte. Der Artikel ist auch bemerkenswert, weil er auf eine Reihe weiterer wichtiger Studien zu den FossilFossilen Lagerstätten verweist.

    1. Ein neuer Standard für Caroen Credits verzichtet auf das Konzept einer angeblichen CO2-Neutralität durch sogenannte Carbon Offsets. Stattdessen werden nur Beiträge zu einer tatsächlicher Reduktion der CO2 Emissionen akzeptiert. Dass viele Unternehmen sich an diesem Standard orientieren wollen, hängt auch damit zusammen, das Gerichtsverfahren gegen wahrheitswidrige Behauptungen von CO2 Neutralität begonnen wurden.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/10/carbon-offsetting-environmental-claims-aoe

    1. Tonne-for-tonne offsetting has historically relied upon the cheapest possible carbon credits that do little to benefit the climate and represent no real pollution cost for companies. Polluters should move to money-for-tonne contributions instead, based on an internal carbon price (WWF recommends $50-250), which would encourage the purchase of higher quality carbon credits with co-benefits. The internal carbon price in turn could be proportional to companies’ revenues or profits. 

      Buying carbon credits with co-benefits, not offsets

      • Title
        • Is carbon tunnel vision real?
      • author Martin Daniel

      • This article introduces the concept of Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) as a way to validate if carbon tunnel vision is real

  5. Jun 2023
    1. For now, we haven’t included emissions relating to loans and investments in our Scope 3 carbon footprint breakdown as these are worked out separately with the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF). We were the first UK digital bank to join PCAF, which asks members to calculate emissions from loans and investments by following industry best practice

      so this something like induced carbon emissions from the activity enabled by the investment?

  6. May 2023
    1. Der Chef des größten Zertifizierers sogenannter Carbon Offsets ist zurückgetreten. Erst vor kurzem hatte eine Analyse des Guardia, der ZEIT und weiterer Publikationen ergeben, dass die Kompensationen für das Emittieren von Treibhausgasen, die von Verra zertifiziert wurden und werden, weitgehend nicht mit realen Emissionsminderungen verbunden sind. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/23/ceo-of-worlds-biggest-carbon-credit-provider-says-he-is-resigning

      • Title: What a 1.5C lifestyle actually looks like
      • Summary
        • Many people want to participate in the transition
        • to a regenerative, low carbon future
          • but the existing high carbon infrastructure
          • makes it very challenging to do so
        • This article features interviews with activists who are trying to live a lifestyle
          • that is consistent with a 1.5C world
          • WITHIN infrastructure that is not yet consistent with a 1.5C world.
          • It is challenging, to say the least!
            • and demonstrates the lock-in feedbacks,
            • a chicken-and-egg situation
            • that creates the challenge holding the masses back
        • From a Stop Reset Go (SRG) perspective
          • this illustrates the entangled relationship between
            • the individual and
            • the collective
          • and how each has an important role to play
            • to influence the other.
          • As an organization working on helping accelerate a bottom-up movement, this brings up the question:
            • what are the leverage points for citizens to accelerate top down actors such as
              • government to establish new policies and
              • manufacturers to create affordable regenerative products aligned with a 1.5C world?
      • Interviewee:
        • Carys mainprize
        • Rosalind Readhead
  7. Apr 2023
    1. Highlights erroneously posted to a group:

       We allocate national consumption emissions to individuals within each country based on a functional relationship between income and emissions, drawing on new income distribution dataset

      HeinzWittenbrink 26 Dec 2020 in COS-OER

      inequalityOxfam and SEI's approach to estimating how global carbon emissions can be attributed to individuals based on their consumption builds on Oxfam's 2015 report 'Extreme Carbon Inequality,'23 which gave a snapshot of the global distribution of emissions in a single year, and that of Chancel and Piketty24 among others. It is explained in detail in the accompanying research report.25

      HeinzWittenbrink 26 Dec 2020 in COS-OER

      nequal growth has another cost: it means that the global carbon budget is being rapidly depleted, not for the purpose of lifting all of humanity to a decent standard of living, but to a large extent to expand the consumption of a minority of the world's very richest people

      HeinzWittenbrink 26 Dec 2020 in COS-OER

      The World Bank recently concluded that continued unequal growth will barely make a dent in the number of people living on less than $1.90 per day by 2030; only a reduction in income inequality will help

      HeinzWittenbrink 26 Dec 2020 in COS-OER

      S. Kartha, E. Kempt-Benedict, E. Ghosh, A. Nazareth and T. Gore. (2020). The Carbon Inequality Era: An assessment of the global distribution of consumption emissions among individuals from 1990 to 2015 and beyond. Oxfam and SEI. https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/handle/10546/621049The dataset is available at https://www.sei.org/projects-and-tools/tools/emissions-inequality-dashboard

      HeinzWittenbrink 26 Dec 2020 in COS-OER

      The poorest 50% barely increased their consumption emissions at all.

      HeinzWittenbrink 26 Dec 2020 in COS-OER

      t is striking that the shares of emissions across income groups have remained essentially unchanged across the period

      HeinzWittenbrink 26 Dec 2020 in COS-OER

      the total emissions added to the atmosphere since the mid-1800s approximately doubled.2Global GDP doubled in this period too, a

      HeinzWittenbrink 26 Dec 2020 in COS-OER

      juncture – prioritizing yet more grossly unequal, carbon intensive economic growth to the benefit of the rich minority

      HeinzWittenbrink 26 Dec 2020 in COS-OER

      in the service of increasing the consumption of the already affluent, rather than lifting people out of poverty.

      HeinzWittenbrink 26 Dec 2020 in COS-OER

      It took about 140 years to use 750Gt of the global carbon budget, and just 25 years from 1990 to 2015 to use about the same again

      HeinzWittenbrink 26 Dec 2020 in COS-OER

      Oxfamand SEI's research estimates how global carbon emissions are attributed to individuals who are the end consumers of goods and services for which the emissions were generated. See Box 2.

      HeinzWittenbrink 26 Dec 2020 in COS-OER

      while the total growth in emissions of the richest 1% was three times that of the poorest 50%

      HeinzWittenbrink 26 Dec 2020 in COS-OER

      The richest 1% (c.63 million people) alone were responsible for15% of cumulative emissions, and 9% of the carbon budget –twice as much as the poorest half of the world’s population

      HeinzWittenbrink 26 Dec 2020 in COS-OER

      he richest 10% of the world’s population (c.630 million people) were responsible for 52% of the cumulative carbon emissions – depleting the global carbon budget by nearly a third (31%) in those 25 years alone

      HeinzWittenbrink 26 Dec 2020 in COS-OER

      From 1990 to 2015, a

      HeinzWittenbrink 26 Dec 2020 in COS-OER

      This briefing describes new research that shows how extreme carbon inequality in recent decades has brought the world to the climate brink.
    1. The question now is, will we high-consuming few make (voluntarily or by force) the fundamental changes needed for decarbonisation in a timely and organised manner? Or will we fight to maintain our privileges and let the rapidly changing climate do it, chaotically and brutally, for us

      Question - Those is the big question!

    2. Most IAM models ignore and often even exacerbate the obscene inequality in energy use and emissions, both within nations and between individuals.

      In Other Words - These recommendations, if we followed continue the existing inequality, Indeed can exasperate it. - Wealthy countries and individuals cannot be allowed to continue emitting high levels of carbon if we are to honour the principle of climate justice andequity written into the climate agreements

  8. Mar 2023
    1. Title: How Alive Is 1.5? Part One – A Small Budget, Shrinking Fast

      Author: - Kevin Anderson - Dan Calverley

      Key Messages - For a 50:50 chance of staying below 1.5°C, we’re using up the remaining carbon budget at around 1% every month. - Following current national emissions pledges (NDCs) to 2030 puts the temperature commitments within the Paris Agreement beyond reach. - Claims that 1.5°C is now inevitable also assign “well below 2°C” to the scrapheap. - An ‘outside chance’ of not exceeding 1.5°C remains viable, but ongoing fossil fuel use is rapidly undermining it. - The few credible pathways for an outside chance of 1.5°C are not being discussed. This is an active choice by policymakers and experts, who have largely dismissed equity-based social change.

    1. While policies limiting the high emitters are thus unavoidable, such as progressive taxes on emissions, they are hampered by three consecutive barriers.

      Three obstacles to policies limiting elite carbon emissions - First is the realization of connection between wealth and carbon emissions - Second is polarized politics making it difficult to pass or implement policies to limit dangerous consumption - Third is focused policy on the oversized contributions of elites

    2. Our findings raise the issue of global policy choices, with this research confirming that targeting the high emitters will be key. Staying within temperature limits of 1.5 °C or 2.0 °C is difficult without addressing the consequences of wealth growth.

      key finding - staying within 1.5 or even 2 deg C will be difficult without addressing wealth growth - a significant share of the remaining carbon budget risks being depleted by a very small group of human beings

    3. command-and-control policies are required to ban energy-intense premium class and private flights.

      // - if millionaire consumptive behavior - threatens the survival of civilization, - then laws can be created to ban the dangerous consumptive behavior - if they cannot self-regulate

    4. In this estimate, US$2020 millionaires will deplete 72% of the 1.5 °C carbon budget (400 Gt CO2, 67% chance of staying within temperature range), or 25% of the 2 °C budget (1150 Gt CO2, 67% chance) over the next 30 years.

      key finding - Elite consumption has the potential to make 1.5 Deg C target unreachable - US$2020 millionaires will deplete 72% of the 1.5 °C carbon budget (400 Gt CO2, 67% chance of staying within temperature range), - or 25% of the 2 °C budget (1150 Gt CO2, 67% chance) - over the next 30 years.

    5. 1% of the world's population is responsible for an estimated 50% of emissions from commercial air transport, most of this associated with premium class air travel of affluent frequent fliers
      • Quote
        • carbon inequality stat
          • 1% of the world's population is responsible for 50% of emissions from commercial air transport
    6. 5245 superyachts with lengths of 30–180 m in 2021, a five-fold increase from 1090 yachts in 1990

      yacht stats - 2021: 5245 superyachts of lengths 30-180m - 1990: 1090 superyachts of lengths 30-180m - stats - yachts - quote - yachts

    7. power law in emission inequality

      carbon inequality follows a power law

    8. the top 1% now being responsible for 17% of total emissions, the top 10% for 48%, and the bottom half of the world population for only 12% (in 2019).

      Quotable carbon inequality stats: - the top 1% responsible for 17% of total emissions, - the top 10% for 48%, - the bottom 50% for12% - stats carbon inequality - quote carbon inequality - 2019

      // A key question is also this: - what are individuals using those carbon emissions for? - is it being used just for luxury consumption - or is it being used to develop and actionize scalable low carbon strategies? - if it is the later, it could be seen as a de-carbon investment

    9. They also highlighted that high emitters live in all countries, but were concentrated in the USA (3.16 million), causing an average 318 t CO2-e per person, Luxemburg (10,000 individuals emitting 287 t CO2-e/year each), Singapore (50,000, 251 t CO2-e/year), Saudi Arabia (290,000, 247 t CO2-e/year), and Canada (350,000, 204 t CO2-e/year)

      Noteworthy countries with the most high carbon net worth individuals (HCNW): - USA - 3.16 million individuals emitting an average 318 t CO2-e/year/person, - Luxemburg: 10,000 individuals emitting an average 287 t CO2-e/year/person, - Singapore: 50,000 individuals emitting 251 t CO2-e/year/person, - Saudi Arabia: 290,000 individuals emitting 247 t CO2-e/year/person, - Canada: 350,000 individuals emitting 204 t CO2-e/year/person

    10. Key drivers of individual emissions include energy-intense transportation, especially private aircraft and yachts, and multiple real estate ownership, often in different continents

      Biggest source of emissions of the elite: - yachts - private air transportation - multiple homes in different countries

      // - luxury industries of: - private jets - luxury home real estate - yachts - are unsustainable - this irresponsible, unsustainable consumption is imperiling civilization itself

    11. close to two thirds of the overall carbon footprint of those billionaires owning yachts is caused by yacht-ownership. This implies a contribution to climate change that is up to 6500 times greater for these individuals than the global average of 4.5 t CO2 per capita and year, or up to 300,000 times greater than the contribution of the poorest, at 0.1 t CO2 per person and year

      Yacht stats: - close to two thirds of the overall carbon footprint of those billionaires owning yachts is caused by yacht-ownership. - Carbon footprint is - 6500 times greater than the global average of 4.5 t CO2 per person per year, - 300,000 times greater than the poorest, at 0.1 t CO2 per person and year - stats - carbon inequality - quote - carbon inequality

    12. the top 0.01% emitting in excess of 2300 t CO2-e per capita in 2019, compared to 6 t CO2-e on global average.

      Quotable carbon inequality stats: - top 0.01% emit more than 2300 t CO2-e per capita in 2019, - global average is 6 t CO2-e - therefore, the top 0.01% emit 2300/6 = 383x more than the global average. - quote - carbon inequality - stats - carbon inequality

    13. Title: Millionaire spending incompatible with 1.5 °C ambitions Authors: - Stefan Gossling - Andreas Humpe

      • Abstract

        • Research question

          • Growing evidence suggests that the wealthiest individuals contribute disproportionally to climate change.
          • This study considers the implications of a continued growth in the number of millionaires for emissions,
            • and its impact on the depletion of the remaining carbon budget to limit global warming to 1.5 °C (about 400 Gt CO2).
          • The study presents a model that extrapolates observed growth in millionaire numbers (1990–2020)
            • and associated changes in emissions to 2050.
        • Results

          • The share of US$2020-millionaires in the world population will grow from 0.7% today to 3.3% in 2050,
            • and cause accumulated emissions of 286 Gt CO2.
          • This is equivalent to 72% of the remaining carbon budget,
            • and significantly reduces the chance of stabilizing climate change at 1.5 °C.
          • Continued growth in emissions at the top
            • makes a low-carbon transition less likely,
            • as the acceleration of energy consumption by the wealthiest
            • is likely beyond the system's capacity to decarbonize.
          • To this end, we question whether policy designs
            • such as progressive taxes targeting the high emitters
          • will be sufficient.

      // and if it is not sufficient, then what?

    1. Millionaires will burn through two-thirds of the world’s carbon budget by 2050, scientists warn

      Taxing? No, they have enough wealth to just keep going. - if we people don't act on their own, legal regulation is required - unless they can transform themselves and the global luxury industry also undergoes a huge transformation

    1. Ads, Andrew and James discuss where the the climate movement is right now, how deep time plays into the effects we are having on the planet, when good people do bad things because of poor systems and what happens next if 1.5C fails.
      • 21:52 Carbon credits, carbon markets
        • it's a scam designed to perpetuate fossil fuel use, in a phoney war against the climate crisis
        • Offsets were designed to allow polluters to pay others to create schemes that would compensate or "offset" that pollution. The classic example WAS afforestation, the planting of trees that can sequester that carbon.
        • Carbon neutrality comes from this idea that you can keep polluting if you offset it and become "carbon neutral"
        • A company may decarbonize a lot of their supply chain but may struggle to get rid of airflights around the world. In that case, they use offsets. When companies analyze the very difficult choices, they take the easy way out and use carbon offsets
        • However, there is so much offsets for afforestation now that there isn't enough land on earth
        • Carbon markets are a recipe for grifting and fraud or zero impacts
        • This is the current state of offsets

      31:00 Shell oil carbon offset greenwashing scam - the sky zero proposal - Shell claims they can offset all the O+G emissions out of the ground - it is preposterous - there's not enough land on earth when you tally up all the carbon offset afforestation schemes

      • 32:30 Neo-colonialism

        • rich white man can offset his emissions by buying land from a developing nation. Now the indigenous people cannot use that land for any reason.
        • also, will require huge amount of water to grow those trees
        • we don't have enough land and we don't have 100 years, only 5 years.
        • nature-based solutions are an industrial, myopic approach
      • 37:00 Deferred Emission Reduction

        • a lot of carbon credits are called deferred emission reduction credits.
        • this is avoided emissions - ie. trees in a forest with 100 ton of sequestering potential
        • this is promise to not destroy the biosphere any further so it's not removing any existing carbon
        • maybe multiple people might own the same forest, or someone might come along and burn it down
        • Trees are vulnerable to climate impacts - ie. Microsoft bought a large forest in California that later burned down in a climate change intensified wildfire
      • 40:00 can we do anything within the extractive capitalist system?

        • some people claim that as long as extractivist capitalism still persists, we cannot have system change
        • also a neocolonialist element - global north exploited the global south to create most of the emissions in the atmospheric commons
        • a number of people are beginning to see that an extractivist capitalist system is not in line with effectively addressing the climate crisis
        • wind, solar, etc has displaced electricity generation in a number of countries like in the UK. However, these are only a few countries.Renewables are helping increase overall energy production
      • 44:22: Stop burning fossil fuels

        • t doesn't matter if investments in renewables triple. It won't make a difference if we don't significantly stop burning fossil fuels at the same time.
      • 47:00 economic growth prevents real change

        • Insisting on 1, 2 or 3% growth, will limit the response to the climate threat to render it irrelevant
        • Climate change is still mostly an optimization problem. They are more concerned with economic damage.
        • Economists believe that anything that threatens economic growth cannot be accepted
      • 51:00 Degrowth making headway

        • Degrowth scholars are getting more attention on the need to decouple economic grwoth from climate policies
      • 52:10 Is there a positive future scenario - The role of solidarity

        • Solidarity is the greatest strength we can harness.
        • The success of Doughnut Economics gives me hope
        • The richest 1% must reign in their impacts and redistribute to allow the impoverished to live humane lives
        • We can all have good lives and we don't have to manufacture that wonder
        • This is what it is to be human
    1. Just transformations challenge power politics, which are often based on vested interests, cost-effectiveness and cost-recovery principles. Addressing deforestation through forest policy may not be adequate to counter agricultural policies that promote land use change to ensure more production and higher gross domestic product (GDP). Carbon markets may be captured by entrepreneurs seeking profit and may not be equitable or effective and can allow pollution to continue. In ‘allocating policy responsibilities’, it is important to not only understand and challenge dominant discourses on increasing GDP at all costs, but also ensure that solutions do not reproduce, redistribute or increase injustices.

      -Summary - Justice arguments transcend the normative status quo arguments that are usually based purely on GDP alone. - Carbon markets / Carbon offsets also need to be challenged as they can often be unjust and wealth concentrating through capitalist entrepreneurship that merely increases injustice.

    2. The black line in Fig. 5 shows that redistribution is not enough; if everyone’s emissions are equalized at escape from poverty levels, then we would still overshoot the climate boundaries
      • First stage of characterizing the Safe and Just Corridor
      • The black line in Fig. 5 shows that
      • redistribution is not enough
        • if everyone’s emissions are equalized at escape from poverty levels, then
        • we would STILL overshoot the climate boundaries (annotator's emphasis)
        • hypothetical pressure from 62% of humanity that is lacking humane access to resources is equal to the pressure exerted by 4% of the elits of humanity
  9. Feb 2023
    1. Klarna which levies money on a per-tonne basis on its own emissions, and uses the funds to finance mitigation projects.

      oh wow, Klarna is doing this now?

    2. At COP27, governments agreed to create a “contribution unit” as part of the establishment of new carbon markets under the Paris Agreement - a clear sign of support for this evolution in claims

      This is the first time I have come aceoss a "contribution unit"

    1. Yet as of last year renewable offsets remain widespread, despite deep doubts about their efficacy. In the broadest investigation yet of how companies have been relying on junk offsets, Bloomberg Green analyzed 190 million tons of carbon offsets purchased in more than 50,000 transactions in 2021. Close to 40% came from renewable-energy projects. According to Ecosystem Marketplace estimates, the total carbon offsets market was worth $2 billion in 2021.

      This is so mich smaller than I thought!

    1. The source of this seed funding was provided from Microsoft’s internal carbon tax. Companies that implement carbon taxes should implement mechanisms that recirculate those funds back into individual business group accountabilities in a way that empowers employees to take effective action.

      This research was paid for by the internal carbon tax - this is news to me

    1. Most future climate scenarios envisage large-scale deployment of so-called “negative emissions,” where we suck CO2 out of the atmosphere in order to keep warming below 2°C. One proposed method for achieving that is “enhanced weathering”—accelerated silicate weathering done by grinding up silicate rock and spreading it on agricultural fields to react with CO2 from the air and fertilize plants at the same time. Brantley’s work shows that for such efforts to be successful, those fields would need a good supply of water and—crucially—would probably need to be plowed regularly to expose fresh minerals to the air. “If you're not going to be turning it over, you'll start to precipitate secondary minerals, and… most of the surface area could be occluded from reaction,” said Brantley.

      So basically enhanced weathering is much less likely to help us, as it would largely scab over, rather than expose the rest of the minerals

    2. Over geological time, those landscape proportions have changed in response to shifting tectonic plates. This has changed how efficient silicate weathering has been at removing the CO2 emitted by volcanoes, thereby allowing high CO2 levels and warm climates at times, like in the Cretaceous, or lower CO2 levels and a cool climate when plate tectonics was building lots of “kinetic-limited” mountainous landscapes, like over the last few million years.

      Wow, so when there are more mountains, more CO2 is drawn down as there's more terrain to expose the rock for weathering

    1. grocery products are clearly labelled with their respective carbon footprints
      • Clear climate impact communication
      • applied to grocery products
      • clearly labelled with their respective = carbon footprints
    2. = creative carbon footprint labeling gamifies Paris Agreement - grocery story that did an experiment - opened a test popup grocery store in the retail district of Stockholm - where all grocery items were labeled with its carbon footprint - customers were issues CO2e currency - using IPCC guideline that - weekly grocery shop carbon footprint < 18.9 kg CO2e to be aligned with Paris Agreement - customers must stay under 18.9 kg CO2e

    1. tackling global poverty will not overshoot global carbon budgets, as is often claimed. Failure to address the power and privilege of the polluter elite will. These are related because reducing carbon consumption at the top can free up carbon space to lift people out of poverty.
      • report shows that tackling global poverty will not overshoot global carbon budgets, as is often claimed.
      • Failure to address the power and privilege of the polluter elite will.
      • These are related because

        • reducing carbon consumption at the top
        • can free up carbon space to lift people out of poverty.
      • = comment:

    2. people on low incomes within developed countries are contributing less to the climate crisis, while rich people in developing countries have much bigger carbon footprints than was previously acknowledged.

      = comment - It has been a research claim for SRG for years that this is the case, - and is also rather obvious that - carbon inequality exists wherever there is wealth inequality - our more interesting analysis is the historical connection between colonialism and capitalism - As the explicit form of colonialism began to disappear for to progressive action, globalised, industrial capitalism began to emerge - the North/South divide created by colonialism began to plant the seed of the extractive logic of democratically into opportunist minds of every creed - in effect, the traditional colonialist perpetrator club, swung their doors wide open, inclusive now of non-white exploiters - there is now a North /South divide within each country

    3. The difference between the carbon emissions of the rich and the poor within a country is now greater than the differences in emissions between countries
      • The difference between the carbon emissions of the rich and the poor
      • within a country
      • is now greater than the differences in emissions
      • between countries
  10. Jan 2023
    1. Understanding human perception by human-made illusions

      !- Title : Understanding human perception by human-made illusions !- Author : Claus-Christian Carbon !- year. : 2014

  11. Dec 2022
    1. what do we really need to do for real zero for 1.5 degrees centigrade and very much I'm framing this around carbon budgets so if anyone's heard me speak before nothing 00:01:37 significantly changed other than another 40 billion tons of carbon Dockside has been put in the atmosphere

      !- title : 2022 remaining carbon budget - speaker: Kevin Anderson

    1. Based on the work of the Part Z campaign, the Bill would mandate the reporting of whole-life carbon emissions from buildings, and set limits on embodied carbon emissions in the construction of buildings. Projects greater than 1000m² or 10 dwellings would need to address and report their whole life carbon from specific dates with limits on embodied carbon emissions being introduced from 2027 based on the data collected in the preceding years. Data collection and measurement are key to managing the progress of de-

      Regulation:: 2027

    2. COP26 promised of 68% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030. Given the significant contribution (25%) that the built environment makes to the emission of greenhouse gases, both the industry and government have a key part to play in reaching those targets and in achieving net-zero by 2050. 

      aims:: Regulation

    1. Watch The Film
    2. he Gilbert is the first Brookfield Properties building completed as Net Zero in Construction. The development intervention has extended the lifecycle of the existing building and made it more relevant for the current and future needs of a workspace, while retaining original architectural features. The renovation of the Gilbert saved approximately 80% of the embedded carbon emissions compared to a new building and achieves a comparable energy efficiency.

      Aim:: Lifecycle

  12. Aug 2022
    1. While Heyde outlines using keywords/subject headings and dates on the bottom of cards with multiple copies using carbon paper, we're left with the question of where Luhmann pulled his particular non-topical ordering as well as his numbering scheme.

      While it's highly likely that Luhmann would have been familiar with the German practice of Aktenzeichen ("file numbers") and may have gotten some interesting ideas about organization from the closing sections of the "Die Kartei" section 1.2 of the book, which discusses library organization and the Dewey Decimal system, we're still left with the bigger question of organization.

      It's obvious that Luhmann didn't follow the heavy use of subject headings nor the advice about multiple copies of cards in various portions of an alphabetical index.

      While the Dewey Decimal System set up described is indicative of some of the numbering practices, it doesn't get us the entirety of his numbering system and practice.

      One need only take a look at the Inhalt (table of contents) of Heyde's book! The outline portion of the contents displays a very traditional branching tree structure of ideas. Further, the outline is very specifically and similarly numbered to that of Luhmann's zettelkasten. This structure and numbering system is highly suggestive of branching ideas where each branch builds on the ideas immediately above it or on the ideas at the next section above that level.

      Just as one can add an infinite number of books into the Dewey Decimal system in a way that similar ideas are relatively close together to provide serendipity for both search and idea development, one can continue adding ideas to this branching structure so they're near their colleagues.

      Thus it's highly possible that the confluence of descriptions with the book and the outline of the table of contents itself suggested a better method of note keeping to Luhmann. Doing this solves the issue of needing to create multiple copies of note cards as well as trying to find cards in various places throughout the overall collection, not to mention slimming down the collection immensely. Searching for and finding a place to put new cards ensures not only that one places one's ideas into a growing logical structure, but it also ensures that one doesn't duplicate information that may already exist within one's over-arching outline. From an indexing perspective, it also solves the problem of cross referencing information along the axes of the source author, source title, and a large variety of potential subject headings.

      And of course if we add even a soupcon of domain expertise in systems theory to the mix...

      While thinking about Aktenzeichen, keep in mind that it was used in German public administration since at least 1934, only a few years following Heyde's first edition, but would have been more heavily used by the late 1940's when Luhmann would have begun his law studies.


      When thinking about taking notes for creating output, one can follow one thought with another logically both within one's card index not only to write an actual paper, but the collection and development happens the same way one is filling in an invisible outline which builds itself over time.

      Linking different ideas to other ideas separate from one chain of thought also provides the ability to create multiple of these invisible, but organically growing outlines.

    1. After theactual note is written and the blueprints are removed, on each of the three cards one keywordis underlined with a pencil or a red pen so that each card can be placed inside the box basedon its underlined keyword

      This works, but I'm a bit disappointed at this advice/revelation...

    2. carbon paper process

      I wasn't expecting advice for creating multiple copies of cards with carbon paper...

  13. Jul 2022
    1. Could social systems be finally reprogrammed, at long last, ‘as if peoplemattered’ [ 8]?
      • They are currently programmed by minority power holders to serve their interest.
      • Many individuals and projects are trying to do this
      • Climate change is a classic example of power holders dictating the agenda
    1. So what can we make of politicians who continue to argue that ‘1.5°C is still alive’? Are they misinformed or are they simply lying?I believe many are in denial about the types of solutions the climate crisis demands. Rather than do the – admittedly – very difficult political work of eking out our supplies of fossil fuels while accelerating a just transition to post-carbon societies, politicians are going all out on technological salvation. This is a new form of climate denial, which involves imagining large-scale carbon dioxide removal that will clean up the carbon pollution that we continue to pump into the atmosphere. While it may seem much safer to stick to the script and say that it is still physically possible to limit warming to no more than 1.5°C, while pointing out that the scale of change demands much more political will, I believe that this can no longer be a credible response to the climate crisis.We have warmed the climate by 1.2°C since pre-industrial periods. If emissions stay flat at current levels, then in around nine years the carbon budget for 1.5°C will be exhausted. And, of course, emissions are not flat – they are surging. 2021 saw the second-largest annual increase ever recorded, driven by the rebound in economic activity after Coronavirus lockdowns. We did not ‘build back better’.The clock has been stuck at five minutes to midnight for decades. Alarms have been continuing to sound. There are only so many times you can hit the snooze button.

      Going all out on technological salvation is a form of climate denialism.

      We are at 1.2 Deg C and emissions have climbed after rebounding after Covid. If they flatline for the next nine years, we will hit 1.5 Deg C.

    1. First, our numbers have risen by 1.4 billion, nearly a hundred million per year. In other words, we’ve added another China or 40 more Canadas to the world. The growth rate has fallen slightly, but consumption of resources — from fossil fuel to water, from rare earths to good earth — has risen twice as steeply, roughly doubling our impact on nature. This outrunning of population by economic growth has lifted perhaps a billion of the poorest into the outskirts of the working class, mainly in China and India. Yet those in extreme poverty and hunger still number at least a billion. Meanwhile, the wealthiest billion — to which most North Americans and Europeans and many Asians now belong — devour an ever-growing share of natural capital. The commanding heights of this group, the billionaires’ club, has more than 2,200 members with a combined known worth nearing $10 trillion; this super-elite not only consumes at a rate never seen before but also deploys its wealth to influence government policy, media content, and key elections. Such, in a few words, is the shape of the human pyramid today.
    1. this is going to be a really critical year uh for public goods uh generation um and here at year i'm using 00:00:40 you know starting from now through the end of 2022 and the beginning of 2023. uh so what i'm going to go through is a case for why this year really matters and why this decade really matters in 00:00:53 the century

      Why is 2022 a critical year to fund projects that build the commons?

      From a scientific, commons and Stop Reset Go perspective, humanity now stands at the doorsteps of the Anthropocene and we as a species have collectively shaped the planet in a way that is harming many species on the globe, including our own.

      We are at a bifurcation point in human history, a fork in the road and the next few years will determine the course of humanity for the next thousands of years to come.

      The funneling of human resources to the few elites at the top leaves the majority of humanity little agency to determine our own future and carbon emissions are also related to structural inequality: https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oxfam.org%2Fen%2Fpress-releases%2Fcarbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity&group=world

      See Jason Hickel's arguments against the overly optimistic story that Neoliberal capitalism has alleviated poverty. Hickel finds the opposite when critical analysis is applied to the rosy claims that Steven Pinker and Bill Gates make: https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjacobin.com%2F2019%2F02%2Fsteven-pinker-global-poverty-neoliberalism-progress&group=vnpq69nW

      Funding projects in the commons counters the wealth of elites, a trend that is counter to planetary health because it continues degrading the environment through carbon inequality:


      and wealth inequality.

    1. The richest 10 percent accounted for over half (52 percent) of the emissions added to the atmosphere between 1990 and 2015. The richest one percent were responsible for 15 percent of emissions during this time – more than all the citizens of the EU and more than twice that of the poorest half of humanity (7 percent).

      This is a key leverage point strategy for Stop Reset Go for Rapid Whole System Change (RWSC) strategy. As argued by Kevin Anderson https://youtu.be/mBtehlDpLlU, the wealthy are a crucial subculture to target and success can lead to big decarbonization payoffs.

      The key is to leverage what contemplative practitioners and happiness studies both reveal - after reaching a specific level of material needs being met, which is achievable for staying within planetary boundaries, we don’t need any more material consumption to be happy. We need an anti-money song: https://youtu.be/_awAH-JJx1kamd and enliven Martin Luther King Junior’s quote aspirational: the only time to look down at another person is to give them a hand up. Educate the elites on the critical role they now play to solve the double problem of i equality and runaway carbon emissions.

  14. Jun 2022
    1. first i think it's important to remember that net zero is a new phrase it's it's nothing we haven't had newton this language of net zero this framing of net zero is is something just appeared just in 00:11:54 the last few years if you look at the sr 1.5 report 2018 in the summary for policy makers then um it's mentioned 16 times if you look at the ar-5 the previous report from the ipcc and their synthesis report 00:12:06 for the summary for policy makers it's not mentioned once you look in the the committee on climate uk committee on climate change's sixth budget report and it's it's a long report 427 pages 00:12:18 it's on numerous times on every page it's somewhere between it's referred to somewhere between three thousand and five thousand times they use the expression net zero look at the previous fifth budget report from the committee on 00:12:31 climate change in 2015 it's not mentioned once now it is true to say that the language of net cumulative missions in various ways has been referred to if you like within the science but the appealing translation and the 00:12:44 ubiquitous use of net zero by everyone is a very new phenomena and one i think that we've taken on board unproblematically because it allows us to to basically um avoid near-term action on climate 00:12:57 change and we can hide all sorts behind it so it's important to recognize that net zero net zero 2050 net zero 20 20 45 for sweden firstly this is not based on the concept of a total carbon budget 00:13:10 and it's interesting note that the uk previously had legislation that was based on the total carbon budget for the uk as i mean i think the budget was too large but it was deemed to be an appropriate contribution to staying below 2 degrees centigrade but now 00:13:24 that's gone now we simply have this net zero 2050 framing so this whole language it moves the debate from what we need to do today which is what carbon budgets force us to 00:13:36 face it moves it off to some far-off point 2045 or 2050 which we have to think about that in which which policymakers in sweden and the uk will still be policymakers in 2045 and 50 they'll either be dead 00:13:49 or retired as indeed with the scientists that are behind a lot of this net zero language so it's in that sense it's we are passing that net zero is a is a generational passing of the challenge of the buck um to our children and our children's 00:14:02 children it's also worth bearing in mind that net zero typically assumes some sort of multi-layered form of substitution between different greenhouse gases so carbon dioxide for me thing between different sources 00:14:15 carbon dioxide from a car can be compared with agricultural fertilizer and nitrous oxide emissions but these these are very different things but across decades a flight carbon dioxide 00:14:27 from a flight we take today can be considered in relation to carbon capture in a tree that's planted in 2050 that's growing in 2070. this assumption within net zero that a ton is a ton is a ton regardless of different 00:14:40 chemistries different atmospheric lifetimes of the gases in the atmosphere and and different levels of certainty and indeed levels of risk and hugely different things this is this is incredibly dangerous and again it's another 00:14:52 it's another thing that makes net zero attractive and appealing in a machiavellian way because it allows us to hide all sorts of things behind this language of net zero the other thing about net zero is that 00:15:07 perhaps with no exceptions but typically anyway it relies on huge planetary scale carbon dioxide removal cdrs often well that's the latest acronym i'm sure there'll be another one out in the next year or two 00:15:20 um carbon dioxide removal captures two important elements first negative emission technologies nets as they're often referred to and second nature-based solutions um nbs so these two approaches one is sort of 00:15:32 using technology to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the other one is using various nature-based approaches like planting trees or peat bog restoration and things like this that are claimed to absorb carbon dioxide 00:15:45 and just to get a sense of the scale of negative emissions that's assumed in almost every single 1.5 and 2 degree scenario at the global level but indeed at national levels as well we're typically assuming hundreds of 00:15:57 billions of tons of carbon dioxide being absorbed from the atmosphere most of it is post 2050 and quite a lot of it is beyond 2100 again look at those dates who in the scientific community that's 00:16:09 promoting these who in the policy realm that's promoting these is going to be still at work working in 2015 and 2100 some of the early career researchers possibly some of the younger policymakers but most of us will 00:16:21 will say be dead or um or retired by them and just have another flavor if those numbers don't mean a lot to you what we're assuming here is that technologies that are today at best small pilot schemes will be 00:16:34 ramped up in virtually every single scenario to something that's that's akin to the current um global oil and gas industry that sort of size now that would be fine if it's one in ten scenarios or you know five and a 00:16:47 hundred scenarios but when virtually every scenario is doing that it demonstrates the deep level of systemic bias that we've got now that we've all bought into this language of net zero so it's not to outline my position on 00:16:59 carbon dioxide removal because it's often said that i'm opposed to it and that's simply wrong um i i would like just to see a well-funded research and development programs into negative emission technologies nature-based solutions and so forth 00:17:12 and potentially deploy them if they meet stringent sustainability criteria and i'll just reiterate that stringent sustainability criteria but we should mitigate we should cut our emissions today assuming that these carbon dioxide removal techniques of one 00:17:25 sort or another do not work at scale and another important factor to bear in mind here and there's a lot of double counting that gotham goes on here as far as i can tell anyway is that we're going to require some level of carbon 00:17:36 dioxide removal because there's going to be a lot of residual greenhouse gas emissions not you know not co2 principally methane and n2o nitroxites and fertilizer use um we're going to come from agriculture anyway if you're going to feed 9 billion 00:17:49 people now quite what those numbers are there's a lot of uncertainty but somewhere probably around 6 to 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent every single year so we'll have to find some way of compensating for the warming from feeding the world's population and certainly there are plenty of things we 00:18:01 can do with our food eating habits and with our agricultural practices but nonetheless it still looks like there will be a lot of emissions from the agricultural sector and therefore we need to have real zero emissions 00:18:14 from energy we cannot be using all of these other techniques nets mbs and so forth to allow us to carry on with our high energy use net zero has become if you like a policy 00:18:28 framework for all and some argue and there's been some question discussion in some of the um journalist papers around climate change recently saying well actually that's what it's one of its real strengths is it brings everyone together 00:18:40 but in my view it it's so vague that it seriously undermines the need for immediate and deep cuts and emissions so i can see some merit in a in an approach that does bring people together but if it sells everything out in that process then i think it's actually more 00:18:53 dangerous than it is of benefit and i think net zero very much falls into that category i just like to use the uk now as an example of why i come to that conclusion

      Suddenly the new term "Net Zero" was introduced into this IPCC report thousands of times. Kevin unpacks how misleading this concept could be, allowing business and governments to kick the can down the road and not make any real effort towards GHG reductions today. Procrastination that is deadly for our civilization.

      At time 15 minute, Kevin goes into Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Negative Emission Technologies

      (NET) which are an important part of the Net Zero concept. These are speculative technologies at best which today show no sign of scalability.

    1. it's really worth reading some of the things 00:18:00 that they're saying on climate change now and so what about 2 degrees C that's the 46th pathway that's the thousand Gigaton pathway the two degrees so you 00:18:13 look at the gap but between those two just an enormous that's where where no English edding we're all part of this and that's where we know we have to go from the science and that's where we keep telling other parts of the world begun to try to achieve the problem with 00:18:26 that and there's an engineer this is quite depressing in some respects is that this part at the beginning where we are now is too early for low-carbon supply you cannot build your way out of this with bits of engineering kit and 00:18:39 that is quite depressing because that leaves us with the social implications of what you have to do otherwise but I just want to test that assumption just think about this there's been a lot of discussion I don't know about within Iceland but in the UK quite a lot me 00:18:51 environmentalist have swapped over saying they think nuclear power is the answer or these one of the major answers to this and I'm I remain agnostic about nuclear power yeah it's very low carbon five to 15 grams of carbon dioxide per 00:19:03 kilowatt hour so it's it's similar to renewables and five to ten times lower than carbon capture and storage so nuclear power is very low carbon it has lots of other issues but it's a very low carbon but let's put a bit of 00:19:15 perspective on this we totally we consume in total about a hundred thousand ten watts hours of energy around the globe so just a very large amount of energy lots of energy for those of you I'm not familiar with these units global electricity consumption is 00:19:30 about 20,000 tarantella patelliday hours so 20% of lots of energy so that's our electricity nuclear provides about 11 a half percent of the electricity around the globe of what we consume of our 00:19:42 final energy consumption so that means nuclear provides about two-and-a-half percent of the global energy demand about two and a half percent that's from 435 nuclear power stations provide two 00:19:56 and a half percent of the world's energy demand if you wanted to provide 25% of the world's energy demand you'd probably need something in the region of three or four thousand new nuclear power stations to be built in the next 30 00:20:08 years three or four thousand new nuclear power stations to make a decent dent in our energy consumption and that assumes our energy consumptions remain static and it's not it's going up we're building 70 so just to put some sense 00:20:21 honest you hear this with every technology whether it's wind wave tidal CCS all these big bits of it technology these are going to solve the problem you cannot build them fast enough to get away from the fact that we're going to 00:20:34 blow our carbon budget and that's a really uncomfortable message because no one wants to hear that because the repercussions of that are that we have to reduce our energy demand so we have to reduce demand now now it is really 00:20:48 important the supply side I'm not saying it's not important it is essential but if we do not do something about the men we will not be able to hold to to probably even three degrees C and that's a global analysis and the iron would be 00:21:00 well we have signed up repeatedly on the basis of equity and when we say that we normally mean the poorer parts of the world would be allowed to we'll be able to peak their emissions later than we will be able to in the West that seems a 00:21:13 quite a fair thing that probably but no one would really argue I think against the idea of poor parts the world having a bit more time and space before they move off fossil fuels because there that links to their welfare to their improvements that use of energy now 00:21:27 let's imagine that the poor parts the world the non-oecd countries and I usually use the language of non annex 1 countries for those people who are familiar with that sort of IPCC language let's imagine that those parts of the 00:21:39 world including Indian China could peak their emissions by 2025 that is hugely challenging I think is just about doable if we show some examples in the West but I think it's just about past possible as 00:21:51 the emissions are going up significantly they could peak by 2025 before coming down and if we then started to get a reduction by say 2028 2029 2030 of 6 to 8 percent per annum which again is a 00:22:02 massive reduction rate that is a big challenge for poor parts of the world so I'm not letting them get away with anything here that's saying if they did all of that you can work out what carbon budget they would use up over the century and then you know what total carbon budget is for two degree 00:22:16 centigrade and you can say what's left for us the wealthy parts of the world that seems quite a fair way of looking at this and if you do it like that what's that mean for us that means we'd have to have and I'm redoing this it now 00:22:28 and I think it's really well above 10% because this is based on a paper in 2011 which was using data from 2009 to 10 so I think this number is probably been nearly 13 to 15 percent mark now but about 10 percent per annum reduction 00:22:40 rate in emissions year on year starting preferably yesterday that's a 40 percent reduction in our total emissions by 2018 just think their own lives could we reduce our emissions by 40 percent by 00:22:52 2018 I'm sure we could I'm sure we'll choose not to but sure we could do that but at 70 percent reduction by 2020 for 20-25 and basically would have to be pretty much zero carbon emissions not just from electricity from everything by 00:23:06 2030 or 2035 that sort of timeframe that just this that's just the simple blunt maths that comes out of the carbon budgets and very demanding reduction rates from poorer parts of the world now 00:23:19 these are radical emission reduction rates that we cannot you say you cannot build your way out or you have to do it with with how we consume our energy in the short term now that looks too difficult well what about four degrees six that's what you hear all the time that's too difficult so what about four 00:23:31 degrees C because actually the two degrees C we're heading towards is probably nearer three now anyway so I'm betting on your probabilities so let's think about four degrees C well what it gives you as a larger carbon budget and we all like that because it means I can 00:23:43 attend more fancy international conferences and we can come on going on rock climbing colleges in my case you know we can all count on doing than living the lives that we like so we quite like a larger carbon budget low rates of mitigation but what are the 00:23:54 impacts this is not my area so I'm taking some work here from the Hadley Centre in the UK who did some some analysis with the phone and Commonwealth Office but you're all probably familiar with these sorts of things and there's a range of these impacts that are out there a four degree C global average 00:24:07 means you're going to much larger averages on land because mostly over most of the planet is covered in oceans and they take longer to warm up but think during the heat waves what that might play out to mean so during times 00:24:18 when we're already under stress in our societies think of the European heat wave I don't know whether it got to Iceland or not and in 2003 well it was it was quite warm in the West Europe too warm it's probably much nicer 00:24:31 in Iceland and there were twenty to thirty thousand people died across Europe during that period now add eight degrees on top of that heat wave and it could be a longer heat wave and you start to think that our infrastructure start to break down the 00:24:45 cables that were used to bring power to our homes to our fridges to our water pumps those cables are underground and they're cooled by soil moisture as the soil moisture evaporates during a prolonged heatwave those cables cannot 00:24:56 carry as much power to our fridges and our water pumps so our fridges and water pumps can no longer work some of them will be now starting to break down so the food and our fridges will be perishing at the same time that our neighbors food is perishing so you live 00:25:08 in London eight million people three days of food in the whole city and it's got a heat wave and the food is anybody perishing in the fridges so you think you know bring the food from the ports but the similar problems might be happening in Europe and anyway the tarmac for the roads that we have in the 00:25:19 UK can't deal with those temperatures so it's melting so you can't bring the food up from the ports and the train lines that we put in place aren't designed for those temperatures and they're buckling so you can't bring the trains up so you've got 8 million people in London 00:25:31 you know in an advanced nation that is start to struggle with those sorts of temperature changes so even in industrialized countries you can imagine is playing out quite negatively a whole sequence of events not looking particulate 'iv in China look at the 00:25:44 building's they're putting up there and some of this Shanghai and Beijing and so forth they've got no thermal mass these buildings are not going to be good with high temperatures and the absolutely big increases there and in some parts of the states could be as high as 10 or 12 00:25:56 degrees temperature rises these are all a product of a 4 degree C average temperature

      We have to peak emissions in the next few years if we want to stay under 1.5 Deg C. This talk was given back in 2015 when IPCC was still setting its sights on 2 Deg C.

      This is a key finding for why supply side development cannot scale to solve the problem in the short term. It's impossible to scale rapidly enough. Only drastic demand side reduction can peak emissions and drop drastically in the next few years.

      And if we hit a 4 Deg C world, which is not out of the question as current Business As Usual estimates put us on track between 3 and 5 Deg C, Kevin Anderson cites some research about the way infrastructure systems in a city like London would break down

    1. Energy efficiency has never been more crucial! The time to unleashing its massive potential has come

      Will this conference debate rebound effects of efficiency? If not, it will not have the desirable net effect.

      My linked In comments were:

      Alessandro Blasi, will this conference address the rebound effect? In particular, Brockway et al. have done a 2021 meta-analysis of 33 research papers on rebound effects of energy efficiency efforts and conclude:

      "...economy-wide rebound effects may erode more than half of the expected energy savings from improved energy efficiency. We also find that many of the mechanisms driving rebound effects are overlooked by integrated assessment and global energy models. We therefore conclude that global energy scenarios may underestimate the future rate of growth of global energy demand."


      Unless psychological and sociological interventions are applied along with energy efficiency to mitigate rebound effects, you will likely and ironically lose huge efficiencies in the entire efficiency intervention itself.

      Also, as brought up by other commentators, there is a difference between efficiency and degrowth. Intelligent degrowth may work, especially applied to carbon intensive areas of the economy and can be offset by high growth in low carbon areas of the economy.

      Vaclav Smil is pessimistic about a green energy revolution replacing fossil fuels https://www.ft.com/content/71072c77-53b3-4efd-92ae-c92dc02f09ad, which opens up the door to serious consideration of degrowth, not just efficiency improvements. Perhaps the answer is in a combination of all of the above, including targeted degrowth.

      Technology moves quickly and unexpectedly. At the time of Smil's book release, there was no low carbon cement. Now there is a promising breakthrough: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/28/carbon-free-cement-breakthrough-dcvc-put-55-million-into-brimstone.html

      As researchers around the globe work feverishly to make low carbon breakthroughs, there is obviously no guarantee of when they will occur. In that case then, with only a few years to peak, it would seem the lowest risk pathway would be to prioritize the precautionary principle over a gambling pathway (such as relying on Negative Emissions Technology breakthroughs) and perhaps consider along with rebound effect conditioned efficiency improvements also include a strategy of at least trialing a temporary, intentional degrowth of high carbon industries / growth of low carbon industries.

  15. May 2022
    1. Wealthy individuals contribute disproportionately to higher emissions and have a high potential28for emissions reductions while maintaining decent living standards and well-being (high29confidence).

      Oxfam reports that the carbon footprints of the richest 1 percent of people on Earth is set to be 30 times greater than the level compatible with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement in 2030. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-set-be-30-times-15degc-limit-2030

      The richest one percent of the world’s population are responsible for more than twice as much carbon pollution as the 3.1 billion people who made up the poorest half of humanity during a critical 25-year period of unprecedented emissions growth. The richest 10 percent accounted for over half (52 percent) of the emissions added to the atmosphere between 1990 and 2015. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity

    1. The global security environment has degraded. Worldwide, increased military spending reflects expectations of greater conflict during the decade between 2022 and 2030, including the prospect of major intrastate warfare.

      The complexity, as the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine of war is that it is yet another feedback loop reinforcing the impact of the hyperobject. From a climate change perspective, war has the highest carbon footprint of all because it is actually the willful distruction of purpose-made human cultural objects that each have an embedded energy cost. Hence war requires the construction of offensive and defensive weapons and equipment, as well as munitions, whose sole purpose is destruction. This comes at its own embedded energy cost and the destruction of human lives and human infrastructure is also prematurely ending the human and material lifetimes of living beings and objects respectively, each of which required high energy cost to bring into existence. It also takes enormous energy resources to maintain armies.

  16. Apr 2022
  17. Mar 2022
  18. www.bbc.com www.bbc.com