French consortium wants to mobilize €1 billion for agrivoltaic projects – pv magazine International
https://www.pv-magazine.com/...nch-consortium-wants-to-mobilize-e1-billion-for-agrivoltaic-projects/

Although solutions to avoid building PV on agricultural land such as agrivoltaics already exist, the major challenge is to make them accessible to farmers.

This is what France-based Sun'Agri, a provider of dynamic agrivoltaic solutions to increase agricultural yields, and RGreen Invest, an independent French management company specializing in green energy infrastructure, have decided to implement through an initiative called “Cultivons Demain!” (Let's grow crops tomorrow!)

CPA Newsletter October 2020 - Climate Crisis Digest: Meeting the future that's arrived.
https://www.climatepsychologyalliance.org/...s/485-cpa-newsletter-october-2020-climate-crisis-digest

The second article, by two ecological economists, Kaitlin Kish and Stephen Quilley, homes in on some “wicked dilemmas” facing left-leaning liberals who accept the principle of biophysical limits to world economic growth. In environmental politics, they say, there is a dominant assumption that the transition to green living can be effected within the liberal norms of the sovereign individual and human rights. Their analysis of systemic complexity leads them to believe that change will be more profound than that, more conflictual and involve ‘social psychological harm’.

They add that the idea of the “good life” and its underpinning mythos will need thoroughgoing reimagining as part of the ‘project of creating an alternative modernity for the Anthropocene’ (by “Anthropocene”, they refer to the complex of ecological and climate crises).

This analysis showed up the space – the space that requires a climate psychology – for psycho-cultural work in imagining what is involved in the transition that we are now living. I realise how blocked my own imagination is when it comes to a textured, realistic vision of our present and future predicament, which faces the bad as well as taking comfort from the good. Mourning the particulars of what feels lost is an appropriate place to tune in; it can bring home what is already happening. For example, every time I go out into a street and, for the first time that day, see a masked face, my heart sinks in dismay. If I am already feeling frayed, loss with its ingredients of sadness and anger reoccupy me. Wearing a mask, the smile with which I greet a wider human world does not reach its destinations.


2017 Wicked Dilemmas of Scale and Complexity in the Politics of Degrowth
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800916311260
dl: https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.008

Towards an Ecopsychotherapy - Kindle edition by Rust, Mary-Jayne. Health, Fitness & Dieting Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
https://www.amazon.com/Towards-an-Ecopsychotherapy/dp/B086VW6B3J/

Psychotherapy invites us to tell the story of our human relationships; ecopsychotherapy expands this to include our earth story, the context or continuum in which our human relationships sit.
Ecopsychotherapy is not simply a technique to be applied in therapy: it involves a change in perspective. While practising therapy outdoors is a radical shift that can support and facilitate the healing process, it also acknowledges that our relationship with the earth is both inside and outside ourselves.
As climate chaos quickens and increasing numbers of people are waking up to the seriousness of our environmental crisis, we are becoming more aware of our dysfunctional relationship with the earth – the body on whom we depend for everything. Ecopsychotherapy can help to support our reconnection with nature and to discover hope in turbulent times.


https://www.confer.uk.com/depth-courses/ecopsychotherapy.html

Anthropocene Psychology: Being Human in a More-than-Human World - 1st
https://www.routledge.com/...ology-Being-Human-in-a-More-than-Human-World/Adams/p/book/9781138570252

Through a series of strange encounters between human and nonhuman worlds, Adams argues for the importance of cultivating attentiveness to the specific and situated ways in which the fates of multiple species are bound together in the Anthropocene. Throughout the book this argument is put into practice, incorporating everything from Pavlov’s dogs, broiler chickens, urban trees, grazing sheep and beached whales, to argue that the Anthropocene can be good to think with, conducive to a seeing ourselves and our place in the world with a renewed sense of connection, responsibility and love.

Building on developments in feminist and social theory, anthropology, ecopsychology, environmental psychology, (post)humanities, psychoanalysis and phenomenology, this is fascinating reading for academics and students in the field of critical psychology, environmental psychology, and human–animal studies.


Anthropocene Psychology: Being Human in a More than Human World by Matthew Adams (Routledge 2020)
https://www.climatepsychologyalliance.org/...a-more-than-human-world-by-matthew-adams-routledge-2020

To accept the Anthropocene as invitation, we must recognise and help articulate deeply felt losses as a starting point for action, but we can also strive, however awkwardly and imperfectly, to break out of the explanatory models that have for so long held ‘nature’ as an inert and malleable backdrop to a human drama, and embrace and develop a more lively, animated narrative of reciprocal relationality. This requires ‘two-eyed seeing’: ‘to learn from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of western knowledges and ways of knowing’ (Arsenault, 2018); ‘not integrating, but weaving knowledges so that each way of seeing maintains its own integrity, while enhancing perspective and broadening understanding’ (Diver et al., 2019, p. 4). (Adams pp. 135-136)

11. 11. online diskuse Komunitní projekty a jejich dopad na životní prostředí ve městě
https://www.facebook.com/events/772609333299358/

Keynote Speech Prof Johan Rockström & CEO Pavan Sukhdev
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qPW726ymbw



Something we have to think about is a new lens for looking at food, because too much we have focused on just per hectare productivity as the way forward. The problem with doing that is of course we forget that food is about a billion jobs, it's about nutrition, it's about health, it's about culture, it's about all of these things. And yet, when we come to measuring food, we just look at per hectare productivity. We need a much more comprehensive lens - a lens that shows that we are actually flying a spaceship rather than navigating a ship with a mariners compass, that kind of lens.

And the question then arises - isn't it too difficult to calculate all these impacts? Can you for instance calculate the impact of agrochemical compounds on human health? The surprising good answer is yes, you can. It's already been done for endocrine disruptors. This was work done for the European Inion -- 150 billion dollars worth of costs. Others will ask you: Fine, even if you know these costs and these answers, why would a poor country ever worry about this, because all they want is cheap food? But the reality is that's not true. We have Sri Lanka which already has a three-year plan for a toxin-free Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka in response to the World Health Organization warning on glyphosates has already banned glyphosates. And that's a developing country.

Then others will ask you: Okay, fine, we accept that this is possible to calculate through a new lens and it's maybe going to be responded to by developing countries, but why would investors worry about this? Why would investors worry about sustainability? But the interesting thing is even here we have a surprising answer for you that yes, investors do worry. In fact almost a tenth of the total debt and equity assets in the world - 215 trillion dollars - 21.3 trillion of those are being examined through the lens of sustainability today. This is an increase of almost 30 percent per year over the last two years, so yes, investors are taking serious note. They are looking at companies and their value chains and what would companies do with their value chains. So the big challenge here is that we all know that we need a transformation towards a sustainable future that food plays a central role to achieve. This is tremendous challenge, but it also has to occur at a rapid, rapid pace. We only have basically one generation to make this transition to a fossil fuel-free sustainable future. The big question then is: Is it possible to leverage the 10 percent that today already invest in sustainability to get the other 90 percent to move? We've been exploring this by for example looking at the seafood industry. What we find is that in the thousands of actors you see on x-axis here there are 13 outliers that actually represent up to 40 percent of the economy in the seafood industry, 13 outliers that fish across the entire ocean spectrum on the planet and who are drivers of aquaculture and policy influence. These 13 is what we today call keystone actors.

The big question is what if we were able to transition into logic of having a transformation towards prosperity, towards revenue and profit within a safe operating space in this structure of the SDGs. What if we were able to get these companies to show that yes we can, yes, it makes sense to have sustainability as the entry point for a secure revenue pathway, and cut us off from this prisoner's dilemma that large parts of the actors are today - the dilemma that if i'm sustainable on wide ocean, others will fish that ocean the day after. This has led to one option for this "david and goliath" type strategy, where in fact alliances for success today in the world, even if they only represent 10 as the finances are today, could actually tip over the remaining 90, and that is what we're hoping that this eat forum could actually inspire. Science says let's put the wedding cake of the SDGs into the plate, let's think of a paradigm shift of truly seeing our planet as a non-negotiable, but not as a limitation for prosperity, transformation and success. In fact, food is a prerequisite for that success. If we can really succeed on food, we will succeed for people and we will succeed for planet. There is clearly a partnership between science, business and policy in such a transition.

Investing in biodiversity would win huge benefits, says CIFOR’s Robert Nasi - CIFOR Forests News
https://forestsnews.cifor.org/...ing-in-biodiversity-would-win-huge-benefits-says-cifors-robert-nasi

while conserving biodiversity, we will expect a certain standard of living — a decent standard of living.

For that, we need to produce goods and services, which means that we must mainstream biodiversity into the productive sector. That is something that is very important that we can do, and we can do it with benefits.

Some sectors are of course, directly impacted by biodiversity, big agriculture is on borrowed time from biodiversity for pollination, for pest control, for plant growth.

Others, like the energy sector, which is largely dependent on fossil fuels, may also believe that they are immune to biodiversity loss. But they are fooling themselves because without biodiversity they will not survive either.

As well as conserving what is left by mainstreaming biodiversity into our production sector, we also need to restore all that has been degraded.

We need to turn restoration into an enterprise that creates jobs, services and livelihoods on top of restoring biodiversity.

Empirical data show that if one dollar is invested in restoration there is a return of $7 to $10, so the question is, why are we not doing it.

...

Each year, we spend about $500 billion on subsidies for fossil fuel, about $600 billion dollars on agricultural subsidies and about $1.3 trillion on military expenditures.

And if you draw a parallel and consider the current pandemic, it is obvious that spending this amount of money did not help us to win the war against COVID-19. When we bailed out the banks after the 2008 financial collapse, the direct amount was around $1 trillion, but the actual cost to society is estimated at $16 trillion

What these numbers show is that we do have money, but we have to re-prioritize where it is invested.

If we wanted to invest in conserving biodiversity we could.

Estimates indicate that the amount needed is about $80 billion a year, and to restore degraded land, between $40 to $50 billion a year would be enough.

So, if you look at what we are spending on subsidies, bailing out banks and on weapons of mass destruction, we could well have saved the biodiversity of the world several times and restored our land a couple of times, too.

We all need to sit around the table: Indigenous Peoples; local communities; the private sector; the public sector and civil society.

Those that will not sit at the table will quickly end up on the menu.

We have enough knowledge to do what must be done. We have enough money.

If we want to invest the money into biodiversity, climate change and land restoration, we know that there is a massive return to be made in the medium to long term that will dwarf any money that we spend now.

So, the existential question is why we are not doing it.

We can do it.

YMLADRIS: rikam si, jestli by ji to fungovalo i kdyby byla osklivej chlap ;) + kolik lidi by tohle "kdyz neco potrebujes tak si o to proste rict" zneuzilo, prijde mi to jako utopie
PETER_PAN: zaroven je tam i dost dobrych talku, ktere ted oznacil za "nebezpecny a rouhacsky" ;) jinak ale souhlas

Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets | Science
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6517/705

Although reducing emissions from fossil fuels is essential for meeting this goal, other sources of emissions may also preclude its attainment. We show that even if fossil fuel emissions were immediately halted, current trends in global food systems would prevent the achievement of the 1.5°C target and, by the end of the century, threaten the achievement of the 2°C target. Meeting the 1.5°C target requires rapid and ambitious changes to food systems as well as to all nonfood sectors. The 2°C target could be achieved with less-ambitious changes to food systems, but only if fossil fuel and other nonfood emissions are eliminated soon.

RADIQAL: TED ma dost malou validitu. Po te co se tam objevili ruzni poulicni umelci co nasli smysl zivota v tom stat jako socha za drobaky, nebo ruzni koucove. Pak kdyz tomu dala korunu ta ceska ezopica co tam nepokryte lhala o vysledcich nejakych vyzkumu, tak jsem to uplne prestal sledovat. Jeste si tam muzou vzit nekoho z Greenpeace aby pohovoril o GMO a Jaroslava Duska na problematiku covidu a je to kompletni.

Tim nerikam ze se tam nenajdou dobre prednasky, ale pokavad chces seriozni pristup tak TED nemuzes povazovat za zdroj informaci ktery ti maji otevrit oci.