59 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2023
    1. Our choice to fail over the last 30 years has brought us to this position. And a way out of that, a way out of the Marshall Plan, is to say we can have these negative emissions 00:34:42 I think we need to say that, okay that's one way out of it – if they work. Another way out of it is the Marshall Plan. And so we need to open that that dialogue up. but we've... in effect, I think the IAMs have closed that dialogue,. Which is one of the reasons, going back to... It would be interesting to see other parts of the world looking at this, because, I would have a guess, when we say 'that's not feasible', many people elsewhere in the world are saying 'well of course it's feasible, we've been doing... we've been living like that for years!'
      • for: quote, quote - Kevin Anderson, quote - Kevin Anderson - Marshall plan, discussion - Johan Rockstrom / Kevin Anderson, perspectival knowing

      • quote

        • Our choice to fail over the last 30 years has brought us to this position.
        • And a way out of that, a way out of the Marshall Plan, is to say we can have these negative emissions
        • I think we need to say that, okay that's one way out of it – if they work.
        • Another way out of it is the Marshall Plan.
        • And so we need to open that that dialogue up. but we've... in effect, I think the IAMs have closed that dialogue,.
        • Which is one of the reasons, going back to... It would be interesting to see other parts of the world looking at this, because, I would have a guess,
          • when we say 'that's not feasible', many people elsewhere in the world are saying 'well of course it's feasible, we've been doing... we've been living like that for years!'
      • comment

        • In rebuttal to Johan's perspective on Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs),
          • Kevin is addressing the issue of perspectival knowing, and
          • its implications on what solutions we entertain as a global society.
        • The example he cites is Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) illustrates two major perspectives:
          • Johan includes NETs as he see's that without them, the transition goes from manageable to unmanageable
          • Kevin questions the inclusion of the NETs as potentially shutting down discussion about what Johan would consider an unmanageable situation
        • Kevin brings up a valid point for inclusion of other voices, especially those indigenous ones who are still institutionally marginalized not only in economic and cultural spaces, but also academic and intellectual ones.
        • The decolonization of academia takes on a concrete form here. Both the global and local south have lived under severe economic repression for centuries. Anderson's contention is that making do with less is something that billions of people have had to contend with for centuries as a social norm forced upon them by colonialist then post colonialist institutions.
        • Inclusivity of a greater diversity of voices does play an important role in shaping the future direction of humanity.
        • We should be having an open discussion about a Marshall plan and should not be afraid to go there.
          • We had it in WWII, which, while more direct threat, is not as great as the threat of climate change on all life on earth in a slightly greater time scale.
        • The global and local south has a lot to teach the global and local north. For this great transition of humanity to occur likely simultaneously requires
          • radical amounts of resource transfer from the global / local north to the global / local south,and
          • radical degrowth
    2. t I think there is a risk that we end up being 'activists for the status quo' by being silent.
      • for: quote, quote - Kevin Anderson, quote - silence - activism for the status quo, Stop Oil
      • quote

        • There is a risk that we end up being activists for the status quo by being silent
      • comment

        • I would agree with Kevin. Silence is making a statement, it's not neutral
        • the "activists" are doing the dirty work of critiquing the top down actors
    3. we have been happy to engage with CEOs, with the senior policy makers, with the 'Davos set'. We've been happy to engage with them – across, generally, the sort of more senior climate change academics. But they haven't delivered for 30 years. But what we haven't... Who we very seldom engage with – the balance, to me, is wrong – with citizenry groups. We haven't engaged... with the climate parliament group. So we haven't lent... 00:58:06 Our support has been biased towards a group who are very much in favor of the status quo.
      • for: quote, quote - Kevin Anderson, quote - academic support for bottom-up actors, bottom-up actors - academic support
      • quote

        • We have been happy to engage with CEOs, with the senior policy makers, with the 'Davos set'.
        • We've been happy to engage with them – across, generally, the sort of more senior climate change academics. But they haven't delivered for 30 years.
        • But what we haven't... Who we very seldom engage with – the balance, to me, is wrong – with citizenry groups.
        • We haven't engaged... with the climate parliament group. Our support has been biased towards a group who are very much in favor of the status quo.
      • comment

      • Kevin is tuning into a potential idling capacity and leverage point that academic community has by-and-large missed.
        • Academic support of bottom-up and citizen groups could yield the kind of top-down and bottom-up partnership that could really accelerate climate policy action
    4. I hope anyway, it is a hope – that there will be some sort of partnership between bottom-up and top-down that will provide guidance to leaders to put the right things in place.
      • for: quote, quote - Kevin Anderson, quote - bottom-up and top-down partnership, IPCC AR6 WGIII demand side reduction and bottom-up actions
      • quote
        • I hope that there will be some sort of partnership between bottom-up and top-down that will provide guidance to leaders to put the right things in place.
      • author: Kevin Anderson
      • date: Sept., 2023

      • comment

  2. Aug 2023
  3. Jul 2023
    1. Professor Büchs said
      • quote
        • "Policymakers need to win public support for energy demand reduction mechanisms. -The reality is decarbonisation on the supply side, where energy is generated and distributed, will not be enough to deliver the emission reductions that are needed. -So, energy demand will have to be reduced. That is the inescapable reality."
      • Author
        • Milena Buchs
      • Experts on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimate that
        • reducing energy demand could produce between 40% and 70% of the emissions reductions that need to be found by 2050.

      "Our research is indicating that public support for energy demand reduction is possible if the public see the schemes as being fair and deliver climate justice."

  4. Jun 2023
  5. Apr 2023
    1. Title IPCC’s conservative nature masks true scale of action needed to avert catastrophic climate change Author Kevin Anderson

      Summary The influential 2023 IPCC Synthesis report for policy makers is quite misleading and can steer policy makers in the wrong, and disastrous direction.

  6. 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. hese challenges demand an ethos not of technologicalcleverness, but of social prudence, of acting with humility and cautionwhen confronted by risk and uncertainty. The French philosopherHans Jonas calls this the “imperative of responsibility.”

      // - see also Kevin Anderson's presentation on "The Ostrich and the Phoenix" - https://jonudell.info/h/facet/?max=100&expanded=true&user=stopresetgo&exactTagSearch=true&any=ostrich+and+the+phoenix - humans opt for the just-in-time techno path because we can "kick the can down the road" and procastinate and allow the next generation deal with the problem - As Anderson shows, there isn't enough time for renewable energy to scale to make a difference in the short term and the difficult social problem of massive social behavior change is unfortunately the best way to solve the problem - the allure of technology is that it can fix any problem - the reality is that last generation's technology is unfortunately often the source of this generation's problems - technology not only produces progress, but the unintended consequences produce progress traps which become the inspiration for new technology in an endless cycle of self-created problems giving rise to avoidable solutions

  7. Feb 2023
  8. Jan 2023
    1. Wealthy countries can create prosperity while using less materials and energy if they abandon economic growth as an objective.

      !- related to : Post Colonialist Unequal Exchange and drain - As per Jason Hickel et al article "Imperialist appropriation in the world economy: Drain from the global South through unequal exchange, 1990–2015" - https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fpii%2FS095937802200005X&group=world

      !- Wealthy country degrowth : comment - From the findings of the related article above, the Global North has a very compelling responsibility to degrow AND to help the Global South develop within planetary boundaries. - This is all stated in the climate justice argument, but, as mentioned by Prof. Kevin Anderson in a passing comment, 100 billion is a drop in the bucket. Transfers will need to be in the trillions - Kevin Anderson talk: CO2 budgets 2022: Allocating Global Carbon Budgets to Nations - https://hyp.is/go?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocdrop.org%2Fvideo%2F35-1n1ZowvM%2F&group=world - Still, the term degrowth is unpopular with mainstream economists. Perhaps a better strategy is to frame it as simultaneous degrowth of MATERIALISM of Global North countries but regrowth of NON-MATERIALIST wealth of Global North Economies and both MATERIALIST and NON-MATERIALIST growth of Global South countries.

  9. Dec 2022
    1. our Focus isn't on temperature we're not really interested in temperature what we're really interested in is the rate of change of impacts 00:05:34 so if the impacts that we're seeing from climate change occurred over a million years so what if they came over 500 years becomes a bit more important if they curve over 20 years it becomes incredibly important so it's the time frame over which the impact's occurring that's really 00:05:47 important and this this language of temperature is just a proxy for the change in impacts

      !- quotable : Kevin Anderson - we're not really interested in temperature, what we're really interested in is the rate of change of impacts

    2. 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

  10. Nov 2022
  11. Aug 2022
    1. https://www.kevinmarks.com/memex.html

      I got stuck over the weekend, so I totally missed Kevin Marks' memex demo at IndieWebCamp's Create Day, but it is an interesting little UI experiment.

      I'll always maintain that Vannevar Bush really harmed the first few generations of web development by not mentioning the word commonplace book in his conceptualization. Marks heals some of this wound by explicitly tying the idea of memex to that of the zettelkasten however. John Borthwick even mentions the idea of "networked commonplace books". [I suspect a little birdie may have nudged this perspective as catnip to grab my attention—a ruse which is highly effective.]

      Some of Kevin's conceptualization reminds me a bit of Jerry Michalski's use of The Brain which provides a specific visual branching of ideas based on the links and their positions on the page: the main idea in the center, parent ideas above it, sibling ideas to the right/left and child ideas below it. I don't think it's got the idea of incoming or outgoing links, but having a visual location on the page for incoming links (my own site has incoming ones at the bottom as comments or responses) can be valuable.

      I'm also reminded a bit of Kartik Prabhu's experiments with marginalia and webmention on his website which plays around with these ideas as well as their visual placement on the page in different methods.

      MIT MediaLab's Fold site (details) was also an interesting sort of UI experiment in this space.

      It also seems a bit reminiscent of Kevin Mark's experiments with hovercards in the past as well, which might be an interesting way to do the outgoing links part.

      Next up, I'd love to see larger branching visualizations of these sorts of things across multiple sites... Who will show us those "associative trails"?

      Another potential framing for what we're all really doing is building digital versions of Indigenous Australian's songlines across the web. Perhaps this may help realize Margo Neale and Lynne Kelly's dream for a "third archive"?

  12. Jul 2022
  13. 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. What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds.”

      This is consistent with the recommendations from "Ostrich or the Phoenix".IPCC latest report AR6 Ch. 5 also advocates the huge emissions reduction achievable with demand reduction.

    2. An in-depth 2021 study by Simon Michaux at the Geological Survey of Finland illustrated this inconvenient reality. It calculated that to replace a single coal-fired powered plant of average size producing seven terawatt-hours per year of energy would require the construction of 213 average sized solar farms or 87 wind turbine array facilities. Renewables just have to work harder. The global economy currently operates 46,423 power stations running on all types of energy, but mostly fossil fuels noted Michaux. To green the sector up and still keep the lights on will require the construction of 221,594 new power plants within the next 30 years.

      See comment above about Kevin Anderson's talk Ostrich or the Phoenix?

    3. They also ignore that it took 160 years to build the current energy system at a time when petroleum and minerals were abundant and cheap. Now they propose to “electrify the Titantic” as ecologist William Ophuls puts it, at a time of expensive fossil fuels, indebted financial systems and mineral shortages.

      Professor Kevin Anderson has been advocating for years that whilst renewable energy must be built, significant demand side reduction is the only tenable way to reduce carbon emissions in the next few years so that emissions can peak and rapidly decline. See his 'Ostrich or the Phoenix' talks:https://youtu.be/mBtehlDpLlU

    1. https://app.thebrain.com/brains/3d80058c-14d8-5361-0b61-a061f89baf87/thoughts/32f9fc36-6963-9ee0-9b44-a89112919e29/attachments/6492d41a-73b2-20d8-b145-3283598c612b

      A fantastic example of an extensive mind map from Jerry Michalski using The Brain.

      There are lots of interesting links and resources, but on the whole

      How many of the nodes actually have specific notes, explicit ideas, annotations, or excerpts within them?

      Without these, it's an interesting map and provides some broad context, but removes local specific context of who Jerry is and how he explicitly thinks. One can review the overarching parts to extract what his biases may be based on availability heuristics, but in areas of conflicting ideas which have relatively equal numbers of links within a particular area, one may not be able to discern arguments from each other.

      Still a fascinating start and something not commonly seen in the broader literature.

      I'll also note that even in a small sample of one video call with Jerry sharing his screen while we talked about a broad sub-topic it's interesting to see his prior contexts as we conversed. I've only ever had similar experiences with Bill Seitz who regularly drops links to his wiki pages in this sort of way or Kevin Marks (usually in text chat contexts and less frequently in video calls/conversations) who drops links to his extensive blogging history which also serves to add his prior thoughts and contextualizations.

  14. May 2022
    1. The indicative potential of demand-side strategies across all sectors to reduce emissions is 40-70%15by 2050 (high confidence)

      The focus on demand side reduction can play a major role in peaking emissions in the next few years. Among others Prof. Kevin Anderson has been vocal about the key role of demand side reduction in peaking emissions, as per his Ostrich or Phoenix presentations: https://youtu.be/mBtehlDpLlU

    1. “low-hanging fruit”

      IPCC AR6 WGIII Chapter 5: demand, services and social aspects of mitigation identifies that up to 45% of mitigation can result from a demand-side socialization strategy and collective action mobilization. This gives us tremendous power of impact to mobilize people. The low hanging fruit can be identified by comprehensive, ongoing, deep, global conversations with the greatest diversity of actors with a common vision collectively searching for the social tipping points, leverage points and idling resources and scaling massively thru the Indyweb as a cosmolocal network (what's light we share, what's heavy we produce locally).

      Climate scientist and realist Professor Kevin Anderson has argued for many years that demand side changes are the only solutions that can be implemented rapidly enough to peak emissions and drop emissions rapidly in the short term (next few years), buying time for reneewable energy solutions to scale globally.

    1. We’ve updated the default Tumblr Official blog theme to be compatible with Microformats 2, which allows blogs using the Official theme to be parsed more easily as part of the IndieWeb. Follow the ongoing work on this here!

      Huzzah! Kevin Marks for the win!

      • 大约 99% 的情况下,正确开始的时间就是现在。
      • 别人不会像你一样对你的财产印象深刻。(Morgan Housel《金钱心理学》里面的一句话,可粗浅理解为禀赋效应)
      • 永远不要为你不想成为的人工作。
      • 培养 12 个爱你的人,他们比 1200 万个喜欢你的人更有价值。
      • 不要一直犯同样的错误,做新的试错。
      • 如果你驻足欣赏音乐家或街头艺人表演超过一分钟,你就欠他们一美元。
      • 在「但是」一词之前说的任何话都不算数
      • 原谅别人时,对方可能不会注意,但你自己会被治愈。宽恕不为他人,是给自己的礼物。
      • 礼貌无价。用完马桶后把盖子放下,等电梯时先出后进,把购物车放回指定区域。借东西归还时要比你得到时的状态更好(装满,清洁)。
      • 两方发生争执时,找第三方。
      • 效率被高估了,偷懒被严重低估了。定期安排的休息日、假期、轮休、漫无目的的散步和休息时间对于任何类型的最佳表现都是必不可少的。最好的职业道德包括良好的休息道德。
      • 当你领导群体时,真正的工作是创造更多领导者,而不是更多的追随者。
      • 私下批评,公开表扬。
      • 人生的每一门课程会随时间依次呈现给你。掌握所需的一切能力取决于你的内心。真正吸取一次教训,你就会面临下一个挑战。如果你生存了下来,那意味着你还将得到教训。
      • 从老师那里得到一切知识是学生的责任,而老师也有责任从学生身上学到一切。
      • 如果在一场比赛中获胜变得过于重要,那就改变规则并让它变得更有趣。改变规则本身也可以是新的比赛。
      • 求人赞助,他们会给你建议;向别人寻求建议,他们会给你钱。
      • 生产力通常会有误区。不要以更快完成任务为导向,而要以更好完成任务为目标,寻找你想一直做下去的事。
      • 即时向供应商、工人、承包商支付你所欠的款项。他们下次才会不遗余力地优先与你合作。
      • 我们对自己说的最大的谎是「不需要写下来,我能记住」。
      • 作为意识体,成长是由你愿意进行的不舒服谈话的数量来衡量的。
      • 说话要自信,就好像你是对的,但同时要仔细听,就好像你是错的。
      • 简单的测量:伸平手臂与肩同高,两个指尖的距离就是你的身高。
      • 努力(锻炼、陪伴、工作)的一致性比数量更重要。没有什么比每天做的小事更重要了,这比你偶尔做的事情更重要。
      • 做艺术不是自私的;它是为他人服务的。如果你不做你的事,你就是在欺骗我们。
      • 永远不要问一个女人是否怀孕。她愿意的话会主动告诉你。
      • 你需要三种品质:不放弃某件事情直到最终成功,放弃做无用功,以及信任其他人来帮助你区分这两种情况的能力。
      • 公开演讲时,要经常停顿。在你以新的方式说某件事情之前暂停,在你说了你认为重要的事情之后暂停,并将暂停作为一种解脱,让听众吸收细节。
      • 没有所谓的「准时」之说,你要么迟到,要么提前。你需要做出选择。
      • 问问那些你钦佩的人:他们的运气时常出现在远离主要目标的弯道上。所以接受走弯路。对任何人来说,生活都不是一条直线。
      • 在互联网上获得正确答案的最好方法是发布一个明显错误的答案,并等待有人来纠正你。(以维基百科作者坎宁安命名的定律,维基百科可能是本定律的最佳例子。)
      • 通过奖励好的行为而不是惩罚坏的行为,你会得到 10 倍的效果,特别是在儿童和动物身上。
      • 花尽可能多的时间精心设计电子邮件的主题行,因为它往往是人们阅读的唯一内容。
      • 生活不是等待暴风雨过去,而是要学会在雨中起舞。
      • 查看求职者推荐信时要意识到,雇主可能不愿意或被禁止说任何负面的东西,所以留下或发送一条信息说:「如果你强烈推荐这个求职者,他是超级棒的,请给我回信。」如果他们不回复,就当作是一种否定。
      • 使用密码管理器:它们更安全、更简单、更强大。
      • 接受教育学到的一半技能,是让你学会可以忽略一些东西。
      • 设立大目标的优势在于,制定非常高的标准,即使失败,也可能是普通人眼里的成功。
      • 了解自己的一个好方法是认真地反思别人身上让你反感的一切。
      • 在酒店房间里要把你所有的东西都放在显眼的位置,集中到一个地方,不要放在抽屉里。这样你就不会落下任何东西。如果你需要把充电器之类的东西放在一边,就在它旁边放几件其他的大件物品,拉下三件物品的可能性比只拉下一件小。
      • 拒绝或回避赞美是不礼貌的。即使你认为它不值得,也要感谢地接受它。
      • 始终记得阅读纪念碑旁边的牌匾。
      • 当你有一点成绩的时候,自己是冒牌者的感觉可能是真的。我在愚弄谁呢?但当你创造出只有你—以独特才能和经验—才能做到的事情时,那么你绝对不是冒牌货。这是天命所归。在只有你能做的事情上努力是你的职责。
      • 在逆境中的表现,比你在顺境里所做的更重要。
      • 做对他人有益的事。
      • 当你打开油漆,哪怕只用一丁点,无论你多么小心,它总会沾到你的衣服。准备好着装。
      • 为了让小孩子们在汽车旅行中表现良好,准备一袋他们最喜欢的糖果,每当他们不听话时,就向窗外扔一块。
      • 你无法让聪明人仅仅为了钱而奋力工作。
      • 当你不知道该为某项任务付给某人多少钱时,问他「怎样才算公平?」,他们的回答通常就是该有的价格。
      • 90% 的东西都没有意义。如果你认为自己不喜欢歌剧、爱情小说、TikTok、乡村音乐、素食、NFT,保持尝试,看看是否能找到有意义的 10%。
      • 人们会根据你对那些和你无利益冲突的人的态度好坏来评价你。
      • 我们倾向于高估自己一天内能做的事,又低估自己在十年内能取得的成就。十年时间足以完成奇迹般的大事。一场漫长的比赛包含众多小目标,积累之后形成量变。
      • 感谢那位改变了你一生的老师。
      • 你不可能用别人无法理解的逻辑给别人讲道理。
      • 最好的工作可能是你不能胜任的工作,因为它会最大限度利用你的能力。所以请申请你不能胜任的工作。
      • 买旧书。他们有和新书一样的字。也可以去图书馆。
      • 你可以做任何你想做的事,所以做一个提前结束会议的人。
      • 智者说:在你说话之前,让你的话通过三道门。在第一个大门问自己「这是真的吗?」 在第二道门前问「有必要吗?」在第三道门前问「是好的吗?」
      • 走楼梯。
      • 你为某样东西实际支付的费用至少是其标价的两倍,因为你需要花费时间精力和钱来设置、学习、维护、修理,以及最终的处置。不是所有的价格都体现在标签上。实际成本是标价的 2 倍。
      • 当你到达酒店的房间时,确认紧急出口。这只需要一分钟时间。
      • 回答「我现在应该做什么?」的唯一有效方式是首先解决「我应该成为谁?」的问题。
      • 在高于平均水平的时间内持续的平均水平回报会产生非凡的效果。请买长线。
      • 对无礼的陌生人保持极致风度是很令人感动的。
      • 一个不太聪明但容易沟通的人,可能比一个超级聪明但难以沟通的人做得更好。这是件好事,因为提高你的沟通能力比提高你的智力要容易得多。
      • 偶尔受骗是相信每个人的优点的小代价,因为当你相信别人的优点时,他们通常也会给你最好的回报。
      • 艺术的表现形式是无穷无尽的。
      • 要想在孩子身上取得最好的效果,只花你认为应该花的一半的钱,但花双倍的时间陪他们在一起。
      • 购买最新的本地旅游指南。每年扮演一次游客,你会学到很多东西。
      • 不要排队等候吃著名的东西,一般都不值得。
      • 想要迅速弄清新认识的一个人的真实性格,让他们连接到一个慢得不能再慢的网络上。观察一下。
      • 世俗化成功的处方:做一些奇怪的事情。让你的怪异成为一种习惯。
      • 备份你的备份。至少要有一个物理备份和一个云端的备份,两者最好都有多于一个备份。如果你丢失了你的所有数据、照片、笔记,你会花多少钱来找回它们?与遗憾相比,备份很便宜。
      • 不要相信你认为自己相信的一切。
      • 想要发出紧急信号,使用三法则;3 声喊叫、3 声喇叭声或 3 声口哨声。
      • 在餐厅,您会点一些你知道好吃的东西,还是尝试一些新的东西?探索新事物与利用新事物的最佳平衡是:1:3。将 1/3 的时间用于探索,将 2/3 的时间用于深化。随着年龄的增长,更难花时间去探索,因为它似乎没有成效,目标就成了剩下的 1/3。
      • 真正的好机会不容易找到,更不会明码标注出来。
      • 与某人初次见面并作介绍时,要与对方有眼神接触并默数到 4,这样你们都会记住对方。
      • 如果你发现自己在想 「我的好刀(或者我的好笔)在哪里」,这意味着你有其他坏的东西,把它们扔掉。
      • 当你陷入困境时,尝试向别人解释你的问题。通常当你提出问题的时候就能找到一个解决方案。解释问题是解决困境的一种方法。
      • 在购买花园水管、延长线或梯子时,要买一个比你认为需要的长得多的,那才是正确的尺寸。
      • 不必费心地与旧事物抗争,只需要创造新事物。
      • 只需要给别人以赞赏,他们就能取得超出能力范围的伟大成就。
      • 说起一段历史,巅峰之年总是第十几年,就像每个人十多岁的时候,那是每个人最好的年华。
      • 从让一个人生气的事情大小就能看出一个人的价值。(这是丘吉尔的名言)
      • 当你面向听众表达自己的观点时,最好将目光集中在几个人身上,而不是扫向整个房间,你的眼神代表你是否相信自己所说的话。
      • 习惯远比一时兴起可靠得多,你需要养成习惯才能获得进步。就像健身锻炼,不要专注于塑形,而是要成为从不错过锻炼的人。
      • 谈判时,不要以争取更大的蛋糕为目标,要以创造一个更大的蛋糕为目标。
      • 如果你把今天所做的事情重复 365 次,明年你会成为你想成为的人吗?
      • 你只能看到一个人的 2%,同样他们也只能看到你的 2%,你需要隐藏自己的 98%。
      • 你的时间和空间是有限的,移除、舍弃、扔掉那些已无法让你快乐的事物,以便为新的快乐腾出空间。
      • 我们的后代将取得令我们震惊的突破,如果我们有足够的想象力,可以设想一下他们利用目前已有的条件能够创造出什么,可以大胆猜测一下。
      • 如果你想获得丰厚的回报,那么即使是不感兴趣的事,你也要充满好奇。
      • 专注于方向而不是目的地。没有人能知道自己的命运,但坚持朝着正确的方向努力,你就会到达想去的地方。
      • 每一个突破最开始都是荒谬可笑的,事实上如果它最开始不荒谬,那它就算不上突破。
      • 如果你借给别人 20 美元,而他为了不还钱选择不再见你,那你们的关系只值 20 美元。
      • 复制他人的成功是一个好的开始,复制自己是一个令人失望的结束。
      • 为一份新工作谈判薪资的最佳时机是对方想要你之后,而不是之前。然后,双方都说出一个数字就成了一场博弈,但在你工作之前让雇佣者给出一个薪资水平对你来说是有益的。
      • 与其躲避生活中的意外,不如直接面对这些风险。
      • 如果你使用信用卡租车,不要购买额外的保险。
      • 如果你对一个问题的观点能够从你对另一个问题的观点中预测出来,那么你可能正处于某种意识形态的掌控之中。实际上当你真正独立地思考一个问题,你的结论很难被预测。
      • 争取在离世之前花光自己所有的钱。相比于给你的受益人,自己全部花光更有趣也更有意义。你填的最后一张支票应该是给殡仪馆,还应该拒付。
      • 防止变老的主要方法是对新鲜事物保持好奇和惊讶。
  15. Apr 2022
  16. Jan 2022
    1. Only recently has "memory training" become a butt of ridicule and a refuge of charlatans.

      Daniel Boorstin indicated in 1984 that "'memory training' had become the butt of ridicule and a refuge of charlatans", a concept which had begun by the 1880s with people selling memory tricks and training to the point that the journal Science published an article by George S. Fellows exposing an expensive program by Antoine Loisette, which had been advertised in the New York Times with quotes by Mark Twain. #

      The trend probably hit its peak when huckster and convicted fraudster Kevin Trudeau marketed audiocassette tapes of his "Mega Memory" course on late night infomercials until he was shut down by the Federal Trade Commission in the late 1990's.

      That history had begun to shift with the rise of memory sports and competitions into the early 2000s and popularized by Tyler Foer's book Moonwalking with Einstein.

  17. Nov 2021
    1. let's stop let's just stop doing it and let's let's find other ways of measuring quality of life other than being flooded 00:21:22 by this great tide of plastic and metal and electronics 99 of which we simply do not need to live a good life

      Stop Reset Go strategy. Stop Button. Could we use the Stop Button to just stop? Is there a way to create a conditional stop button with conditional impacts if thresholds are exceeded?

    2. this is a fundamental issue of justice and equity so the top one percent uh in 00:09:22 terms of wealth around the world use 15 produce 15 of the greenhouse gas emissions which is twice as much as the bottom 50 percent whose total 00:09:34 emissions are just seven percent of the total so we're looking at uh a very small number of people grabbing the lion's share of natural wealth they claim to be wealth creators they're actually taking 00:09:47 wealth from the rest of us they're saying we're going to have all this atmospheric space for ourselves and incidentally all these other resources all the mahogany and the gold and the 00:09:58 diamonds and the bluefin tuna sushi and whatever else that they're consuming on a massive scale and this is driven by to a very large extent by their remarkable disproportionate use of aviation 00:10:12 there's one set of figures suggesting that the richest one percent are responsible for 50 of the world's aviation emissions but also by their yachts for example the average 00:10:24 um commonal garden super yacht um kept on standby for a billionaire to step onto whenever he wants um produces 7 000 tons of carbon dioxide per year 00:10:38 if we're to meet even the conventional accounting for staying within 1.5 degrees of global heating our maximum emissions per person are around 2.3 00:10:49 tons so one super yacht is what over 3 000 people's worth of emissions this is just grossly outrageously unfair and we should rebel 00:11:01 against the habit of the very rich of taking our natural wealth from us

      Stop Reset Go needs to implement a STOP the STEAL! campaign against the elites and luxury producers and also a WEALTH to WELLth program to transition high carbon consumption lifestyle to a low one that helps the wealthy funnel their wealth into climate justice and become carbon heros instead of carbon villains.

      See the reports that George Monbiot is referring to:

      OXFAM REPORT: https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Foxfamilibrary.openrepository.com%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F10546%2F621305%2Fbn-carbon-inequality-2030-051121-en.pdf&group=__world__

    3. um kevin anderson 00:12:43 if you can talk more about this issue both you and george assad raymond and so many other climate activists talking about this issue of wealth 00:12:55 you say per capita is a flawed metric as most polluting industries have been moved to developing nations so it's not reflective of the rich nation's emissions take all of this on 00:13:09 yeah i mean that's a really key issue and i think if i focus in here on the uk where i know it's a place obviously i know much better that what we've done in the uk we've closed down a lot of our industry and then we import the manufactured goods from elsewhere in the 00:13:22 world and then we turn around to those parts of the world and then we blame them for the emissions in manufacturing the goods that we are enjoying and that's everything from our electronic goods to parts for our cars as our clothes so you know the uk is 00:13:35 effectively moved to a bar and banking culture and and and offshore virtually everything else and so we when we looking at our total amount of emissions we have to take account of the carbon footprint of our lifestyles and that 00:13:47 does include the emissions that we associated with things that we import and export i mean you take that into account you tend to find that most wealthy countries have a much larger carbon footprint than when you just look at the energy they use within their 00:14:00 boundaries and i think it's really key again when we think about these issues of equity we we that we take this what's often referred to as a consumption-based accounting method we take that into account because it is unfair to be 00:14:12 penalizing poor parts of the world for them making things to help us have a better quality of life over here and when we do that then the challenges get even more striking in terms of what we have to do and it also also brings out 00:14:25 even further the issues of equity the disparity between the richer parts of the world and the poorer parts of the world but i also think on the equity point it's really worth bringing out that it's not as if everyone in the uk is even 00:14:37 there isn't just one public in the uk there are multiple publics there were those of us who are the wealthy ones in our own country that are responsible for the lion's share of missions within the uk that will be true chain for the u.s for germany for japan australia and so 00:14:50 within all of our countries there are large swathes of the country who are the average and below average consumers and for them the response to climate change is very different from those of us who are in our own countries are responsible for the lion's share of 00:15:03 emissions so i think we have to differentiate not just between countries but even within our countries and my concern there is that who are the people that frame the climate dubai debate they're the climate scientists and the academics they're the 00:15:14 entrepreneurs the business leaders the journalists the barristers they're all the people that are in the very high emitting category so we frame the debate and we never ever frame the debate with equity at its core and with regardless 00:15:26 of our maths or our moral sorry regardless of our moral position the maths tell us if we are to deliver on the commitments then equity has to be a key part of our responses but we never talk about that because we are in that 00:15:38 high emitting group

      Kevin points out why a CONSUMPTION-BASED METRIC is more accurate than PER CAPITA metric, as the PER CAPITA metric does not include the embodied carbon emissions of the manufactured goods that consumers purchase. Per Capita metric reflects that the manufacture is responsible, not the consumer, an inaccurate moral indication.

      We have also noticed that wealthy and poor exist in ALL countries of the world and the more nuanced terminology we employ based on a Country-Wealth Sector classification matrix as described here:


      Using this new terminology, Monbiot and Anderson are referring to the North-North and South-North class as all the elites of the world has having the highest personal carbon footprint whilst the North-South and South-South class are the victims.

  18. Oct 2020
    1. For instance, in the study of mobile phone networks, the frequency and length of interactions has often been used as measures of link weight (Onnela et al. 2007), (Hidalgo and Rodriguez-Sickert 1008), (Miritello et al. 2011).

      And they probably shouldn't because typically different levels of people are making these decisions. Studio brass and producers typically have more to say about the lead roles and don't care as much about the smaller ones which are overseen by casting directors or sometimes the producers. The only person who has oversight of all of them is the director, and even then they may quit caring at some point.

  19. Nov 2019
  20. Oct 2019
    1. about the types of immigrants and their suitability for citi-zenship.

      The "Types" of immigrants has always been the issue, rather than the shear quantity of the immigrants.

  21. Aug 2019
  22. Jun 2019
  23. May 2019
    1. Brook Lopez this season had more blocks than Kevin Garnett had in his best season and more 3 pointers than Kobe Bryant had in his best season...


  24. Apr 2016