Global Warming Acceleration
https://mailchi.mp/caa/global-warming-acceleration?e=3ac2bfcbd5

https://twitter.com/MarkCranfield_/status/1340483865794756611?s=19

Hot off the press by James Hansen.

Despite knowing that forcing from aerosols was very large, the IPCC used much smaller forcings in their models.

According to Hansen the "large and persistent" acceleration since 2015 has been caused by reduced air pollution aerosols. https://t.co/9ONF5B6WWr

Incredibly, Hansen suggests that, without the massive acceleration caused by declining air pollution aerosols, the rate of warming would have SLOWED.

https://t.co/GGT2o1VubL https://t.co/wF6Sb05O3h

It's hard to comprehend the awesome significance of Hansen describing this absolutely catastrophic acceleration in global warming as merely a down payment on the aerosol Faustian Bargain.

And given that air pollution takes less than a week to fall from the sky it isn't only our grandchildren that the devil is coming for.

I'm an analyst and these are dry and unpleasant issues, but we have to get our heads around them because these two subjects (aerosols and climate sensitivity) tell us everything about the fraud at the heart of the IPCC and the future of the earth and the human race.

Governing by targets: reductio ad unum and evolution of the two-degree climate target
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10784-016-9336-7

Targets are widely employed in environmental governance. In this paper, we investigate the construction of the 2 °C climate target, one of the best known targets in global environmental governance. Our paper examines this target through a historical reconstruction that identifies four different phases: framing, consolidation and diffusion, adoption, and disembeddedness. Our analysis shows that, initially, the target was science-driven and predominantly EU-based; it then became progressively accepted at the international level, despite a lack of broader debate among governments on the policy implications and required measures for implementation. Once the 2 °C target was endorsed at the level of the United Nations, the nature of the target changed from being policy-prescriptive to being largely symbolic. In this phase, the target became a disembedded object in global governance not linked to a shared agenda nor to coordinated and mutually binding mitigation efforts. The 2015 Paris Agreement marks the last stage in this development and may have further solidified the target as a disembedded object. In the final part of the paper, we suggest ways to overcome the current situation and to develop the 2 °C target into a fully fledged global environmental governance target

Carbon Pricing Explained [Carbon Tax vs. Cap & Trade]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7fj4IYqZ5I

PAD: to mi prijde jako nesmysl, 2/3 fosilnich zdroju je zvenku (plyn, ropa), navic jde o docasne obdobi 20 let

PAD: Možných rizik je spousta, ale za mě je nejhorší riziko, že carbon tax nezavedeme, nebo že bude jen na oko. Kdyby jediná forma, která by šla prosadit, vyplácela celý výnos Křetínskému a Tykačovi, tak bych byl pro.

JIMIQ: Ono je jedno nebezpeci u te uhlikove dane - kdyz bude vynos dostatecne velky, stat se na ni stane zavisly, takze pak nebude mit uplne motivaci vlastne ten uhlik eliminovat. Napr. v Irsku pred r. 2008 byl stat cim dal vice zavisly z vynosu ruznych dani a poplatku z nemovitosti, coz jej vlastne cinilo zavislym na rostouci nemovitostni bubline. Pritom jeste snizoval dane z prijmu. Pak prisel krach. Podobne vlastne staty neskoncuji treba s levnym pivem (chlastem obecne), protoze je to vyznamny vynos. I kdyz nasledky jsou mnohem horsi (ve zdravotnictvi, ale obecne spolecnosti).

The World After: Bruno Latour and Hartmut Rosa on the consequences of the coronavirus crisis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mdi6HRGUY8


After two centuries of virtually uninterrupted acceleration, the world is suddenly slowing down. Governments around the world are making decisions that seemed unimaginable just a few months ago. Could the coronavirus crisis also be an opportunity to change our thinking and for new policies? Two of Europe’s leading thinkers discuss new ways of considering our relationship with the world. A conversation between Bruno Latour, Sociologist, anthropologist and philosopher of science & Professor Hartmut Rosa, Director of the Max Weber Center for Advanced Studies, Friedrich Schiller University Jena.

TADEAS: zenska z h&m group
6:10 decoupling

CFS+ 1:1 Impact Conversations | Helena Helmersson + Johan Röckstrom | Full conversation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKj6MelObk0

PAD: Co je na dividendě neefektivního? Už máme registry, důchody, stačí jen změnit zákon. Je to šance jak zavést UBI. Sleva na poplatníka by taky fungovala, když nechceš UBI, ale těžit z toho bude střední třída, chudí daně neplatí. A je to větší prostor pro machinace ze strany politiků, daním u nás rozumí málokdo.
Ale hlavně jde o tu carbon tax, aby byla dost silná. A jak to udělat, aby to nedopadlo jen na chudší, jinak se tomu postaví žluté vesty a populisti. A jak to prosadit přes odpor oligarchů a korporací, které mají reálnou moc.

PAD: proč sám? Můžeš dělat mikrodistributora po městě, přeprodávat to těm 1000 lidem, co tam bydlej, a řeešit jenom zbytek.

PAD: Piráti by měli prosadit carbon dividend. Aby se podobné projekty vyplatily a nemusel je nikdo dotovat. Jenže to se jim ve vládě s ODS těžko podaří. Snad za 5 let, až ODS konečně zanikne.