318 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
  2. Jul 2021
    1. Limiting warming to 1.5°C implies reaching net zero CO2 emissions globally around 2050 and concurrent deep reductions in emissions of non-CO2 forcers, particularly methane (high confidence). Such mitigation pathways are characterized by energy-demand reductions, decarbonization of electricity and other fuels, electrification of energy end use, deep reductions in agricultural emissions, and some form of CDR with carbon storage on land or sequestration in geological reservoirs.

      This is where the net zero by 2050 comes from. Note in this scenario it requires CDR ... plus massive transformations in energy and production systems.

    2. Limiting warming to 1.5°C depends on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the next decades, where lower GHG emissions in 2030 lead to a higher chance of keeping peak warming to 1.5°C (high confidence). Available pathways that aim for no or limited (less than 0.1°C) overshoot of 1.5°C keep GHG emissions in 2030 to 25–30 GtCO2e yr−1 in 2030 (interquartile range). This contrasts with median estimates for current unconditional NDCs of 52–58 GtCO2e yr−1 in 2030.

      i.e. current commitments have 2x the amount of CO2 emitted per year in 2030 that is compatible with 1.5°.

  3. Jun 2021
    1. Ultimately, having access to the top political decision makers and using biased studies, the industrial lobbies have managed to sabotage the reforms the Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat called for. A context and tactic we are only too familiar with.

      Details? What biased studies? how did they sabotage this?

  4. May 2021
    1. 71% of global emissions can be traced back to 100 companies,

      This would seem to fall into the Pareto principle guidelines. How can we minimize the emissions from just these 100 companies?

    1. Right now, most of the blockchain mining in the world happens in China, where provinces with the cheapest energy set up mining operations to do the ‘proof of work’ calculations that the dominant paradigm of blockchain requires. Factories that ostensibly make other things now acquire significant computing hardware and dedicate energy in order to, essentially, print money that’s then stored offshore. A recent study shows that 40% of China’s mostly bitcoin mining is powered by coal-burning. We also already know that non-blockchain server farms in cheap energy countries consume so much energy they distort national grids, and throw off huge amounts of heat that then need cooling for the servers to operate, creating a vicious cycle of energy consumption
  5. Apr 2021
    1. ReconfigBehSci. (2021, January 1). It is 13 months since the piece on ‘reconfiguring behavioural science’ for crisis knowledge management that led to https://t.co/pIBRAjupO3 What have we learned? What did the behavioural sciences get right? What went wrong? Join the discussion! 1/2 https://t.co/KZg3ugEg6J [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1385271556436283395

    1. This project will be great for instruction and portable reproducible science

      This is what I'm aiming for with triplescripts.org. Initially, I'm mostly focused on the reproducibility the build process for software. In principle, it can encompass all kinds of use, and I actually want it to, but for practical reasons I'm trying to go for manageable sized bites instead of very large ones.

  6. Mar 2021
    1. There are currently three implementations of the ActivePapers concept: the Python edition, the JVM edition, and the Pharo edition

      There is only one reasonable approach, and it's not even mentioned as an option here: the browser edition. (I.e., written to target the ubiquitous WHATWG/W3C hypertext system.)

    1. ReconfigBehSci. (2020, November 10). Starting soon Day 2 SchBeh Workshop ‘Building an online information environment for policy relevant science’ join for a Q&A with Martha Scherzer (WHO) on role of behavioural scientists in a crisis followed by sessions on ‘Online Discourse’ and ‘Tools’ https://t.co/Gsr66BRGcJ [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1326121764657770496

    1. ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: ‘Session 1: “Open Science and Crisis Knowledge Management now underway with Chiara Varazzani from the OECD” How can we adapt tools, policies, and strategies for open science to provide what is needed for policy response to COVID-19? #scibeh2020’ / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved 5 March 2021, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1325720293965443072

  7. Feb 2021
    1. Dr Phil Hammond 💙. (2020, December 6). In some parts of the country, 31% of care home staff come from the EU. Some areas already have a 26% vacancy rate. And on January 1, EU recruitment will plummet because workers earn less than the £26,500 threshold. A very predictable recruitment crisis on top of the Covid crisis. [Tweet]. @drphilhammond. https://twitter.com/drphilhammond/status/1335490431837200384

  8. Jan 2021
    1. These predictions are absurd. A 3°C increase could trigger, and a6°C increase would trigger, every “tipping element” shown in Table 2. The Earth would have a climate unlike anything our species has experienced in its existence, and the Earth would transition to it hundreds of times faster than it has in any previous naturally-driven global warming event (McNeall et al., 2011). The Tropics and much of the globe’s temperate zone would be uninhabitable by humans and most other life forms. And yet Nordhaus thinks it would only reduce the global economy by just 8%?Comically, Nordhaus’s damage function is symmetrical — it predicts the same damages from a fall in temperature as for an equivalent rise. It therefore predicts that a 6°C fall in global temperature would also reduce GGP by just 7.9% (see Figure 3). Unlike global warming, we do know what the world was like when the temperature was 6°C below 20th century levels: that was the average temperature of the planet during the last Ice Age (Tierney et al., 2020), which ended about 20,000 years ago. At the time, all of America north of New York, and of Europe north of Berlin, was beneath a kilometre of ice. The thought that a transition to such a climate in just over a century would cause global production to fall by less than 8% is laughable.Again, I found myself in the position of a forensic detective, trying to work out how on Earth could otherwise intelligent people come to believe that climate change would only affect industries that are directly exposed to the weather, and that the correlation between climate today and economic output today across the globe could be used to predict the impact of global warming on the economy? The only explanation that made sense is that these economists were mistaking the weather for the climate.

      Wow!

    1. The insurrection isn’t just being televised. It’s being orchestrated, promoted, and broadcast on the platforms of companies with a collective value in the trillions of dollars.
    1. If human beings really were able to take the long view — to consider seriously the fate of civilization decades or centuries after our deaths — we would be forced to grapple with the transience of all we know and love in the great sweep of time. So we have trained ourselves, whether culturally or evolutionarily, to obsess over the present, worry about the medium term and cast the long term out of our minds, as we might spit out a poison.

      +10

    2. These theories share a common principle: that human beings, whether in global organizations, democracies, industries, political parties or as individuals, are incapable of sacrificing present convenience to forestall a penalty imposed on future generations. When I asked John Sununu about his part in this history — whether he considered himself personally responsible for killing the best chance at an effective global-warming treaty — his response echoed Meyer-Abich. “It couldn’t have happened,” he told me, “because, frankly, the leaders in the world at that time were at a stage where they were all looking how to seem like they were supporting the policy without having to make hard commitments that would cost their nations serious resources.” He added, “Frankly, that’s about where we are today.”
  9. Dec 2020
    1. It seems to also highlight how much our governments, banks and big corporations roles play into the state of our planet, how much we need them to change so that our individual choices can actually make a significant difference. Read more

      Notice the subtle othering: it's not "us" who have been doing this but the "governments, banks and big corporations" ... But who are their shareholders, who are their citizens, staff, customers etc? Us ...

      Note this is a comment on Attenborough's book. I do wonder what his recommendations are...

  10. Nov 2020
  11. Oct 2020