DZODZO: Tomu rozumím, nejlíp chutná argentinský steak podávaný s trochou doomismu, guilty pleasure a nějakou mindfulness technikou...

GOJATLA: ja mam ten hedonism, obcas si doprajem steak alebo burger kym sa este da

Fakta o klimatu
https://twitter.com/faktaoklimatu/status/1447497996661399552?s=19

Co se vlastně děje?
V ČR dochází k umírání lesů ve velkých plochách – plošný rozpad lesa. Jde především o smrkové lesy v nižších polohách a částečně také lesy borové.
Od roku 2016 bylo vytěženo 146000 ha mrtvých lesů.
= čtverec o straně 38 km
= cca 5 % rozlohy 🇨🇿lesní půdy

Některé oblasti republiky jsou na tom hůře, než jiné. Obecně lze říci, že Morava* je na tom hůře než Čechy.
V kraji Vysočina bylo od roku 2016 vykáceno přes 20 % jehličnatých lesů, v Jihomoravském, Moravskoslezském a Olomouckém kraji okolo 17 %.

...

Dopad klimatické změny na české lesy je příkladná ukázka jaký vliv má růst průměrné globální teploty na naši společnost - prohlubuje problémy, které zde již máme.

přemýšlela jsem o tom českém soft denialu (ano, klima se mění, ale nepřipouštím si dopad té změny). termín se používá od roku 2016 a Hoexter listed several beliefs or thought patterns that, in his observation, tend to contribute to soft climate denial:[10]

Psychological isolation and compartmentalization – Events of everyday life usually lack an obvious connection to global warming. As such, people compartmentalize their awareness of global warming as abstract knowledge without taking any practical action. Hoexter identifies isolation/compartmentalization as the most common facet of soft denial.

"Climate providentialism" – In post-industrial society, modern comforts and disconnection from nature lead to an assumption that the climate "will provide" for humans, regardless of drastic changes. Though named for a belief found in some forms of Christianity, Hoexter uses the term in a secular context and relates it to anthropocentrism.

"Carbon gradualism" – An assumption that global warming can be addressed though minor "tweaks" conducted over extended periods of time. Proposals for more drastic change may be more realistic, but appear "radical" by comparison.

Substitutionism – A tendency among politically engaged people to "substitute a high-minded pre-existing activist cause" in place of the more immediate challenge of fossil fuel phase-out. Hoexter associates substitutionism with eco-socialism, green anarchism, and the climate justice movement, which he said tends to prioritize "laudable and important concerns about environmental justice and inequality" at the expense of "the future-looking fight to stabilize the climate."

Intellectualization – Engaging with climate change in a primarily academic context makes the issue an abstraction, lacking the visceral stimuli that prompt people to take concrete action.

Localism – Emphasis on "small" changes to improve one's local environment is a well-intentioned but limited response to a problem on the scale of global warming.

"Moral or intellectual narcissism" – Deriving a misplaced sense of superiority over "hard" climate deniers, soft deniers may come to believe that simply acknowledging the existence of climate change or expressing concern is sufficient by itself.

"Confirmation of pre-existing worldview" – Because of cognitive inertia, people may fail to integrate the significance or scale of climate change the framework of their existing beliefs, knowledge, and priorities.

Millenarianism – Activists become transfixed with a grand vision of an eventual, fundamental transformation of society, supplanting meaningful concrete action at the day-to-day level.

Sectarianism – Activists may become preoccupied with a particular vision of climate policy and become caught up in the narcissism of small differences, tedious debates, and far-flung hypotheticals to the detriment of more productive activity.

"Commitment to Hedonism" – The looming dread of climate change can emotionally overwhelm a person and may prompt a retreat into pleasure for its own sake. Alternately, people may indulge in pleasurable activities that they worry may not be readily accessible in a future society adapted to climate change.

"Entente with nihilism, defeatism, and depression" – In Hoexter's view, genuine nihilism remains a tendency within "hard" denialism; however, people who feel disempowered or overwhelmed about climate change may come to accept an uneasy coexistence with such nihilism.

According to Anne Pasek, the difficulty of comprehending the sheer scale of global warming and its effects can result in sincere (albeit ill-founded) belief that individual changes in behavior will suffice to address the problem without requiring more fundamental structural changes.[17] In political terms, soft climate denial can stem from concerns about the economics and economic impacts of climate change, particularly the concern that strong measures to combat global warming or mitigate its impacts will seriously inhibit economic growth.[18]

GLOBETROTTER: takže se chceš vymezit proti tomu obrázku, co vypadá, jako že ho kreslilo nějaký dítě na prvním stupni v hodině výtvarky v rámci nějakýho ekoprojektu? OK, píšeme si. Rasistická historka jako zvířátko na závěr taky pěkná.

GLOBETROTTER: simtě, tvoje bába je nebezpečná. Opravdu doporučuju ten Berlín navštívit. Jsem si přesně říkal minulej tejden, že tohle vidět nyxí petrolheadi, tak se poserou na místě. Všude miliarda cyklistů, co počítaj s tím, že maj přednost, a na auta tam kašlou, průměrná šestiproudovka měla z jednoho pruhu cyklostezku, z druhýho buspruh a poslední zbyl motoristům. Nějak jim to funguje. Na cyklostezkách je nekonečnej proud kolařů a koloběžkářů, tak hustej, že se fakt omylem nerozhodneš do něj vstoupit. Jak na magistrále, akorát nepotřebujou dvacetimetrovou tepnu, ale dvoumetrovou.

Steve Keen - The Macroeconomics of Degrowth: Can Planned Economic Contraction be Stable? - Brave New Europe
https://braveneweurope.com/steve-keen-the-macroeconomics-of-degrowth-can-planned-economic-contraction-be-stable

just as Covid-19 has severely jolted our consciousness, and led to policy changes that were unthinkable as recently as January 2020, what if these and subsequent ecological calamities shook humanity so much that we decided, belatedly but instantly, to impose the limits that Limits to Growth recommended we should implement 45 years ago? What would happen to global GDP?

Answering this question thoroughly would require updating the Limits to Growth study with current data. This should have been happening on a regular basis since 1972, but it was prevented in large measure by the ferocious attacks on the study’s credibility by economists in general—and by William Nordhaus in particular (Nordhaus 1973; Nordhaus 1992). These attacks were based on misinformation and ignorance rather than knowledge (Forrester, Gilbert et al. 1974), but—or should I say “and”?—their impact was devastating. Though the book itself sold millions of copies, the group’s research funding evaporated. Whereas the original study was run on top of the line (for the time) mainframe computers at MIT, with a budget of the order of a million dollars in 1972, today Jorgen Randers, one of the authors of the original study, is working without pay on developing an extended version of the World3 model called MODCAP (using the PC-based system dynamics program Vensim). In 2019 he was unable to raise funds to continue employing his one assistant.

Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5 °C world | Nature
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03821-8

Here we use a global energy systems model8 to assess the amount of fossil fuels that would need to be left in the ground, regionally and globally, to allow for a 50 per cent probability of limiting warming to 1.5 °C. By 2050, we find that nearly 60 per cent of oil and fossil methane gas, and 90 per cent of coal must remain unextracted to keep within a 1.5 °C carbon budget. This is a large increase in the unextractable estimates for a 2 °C carbon budget9, particularly for oil, for which an additional 25 per cent of reserves must remain unextracted. Furthermore, we estimate that oil and gas production must decline globally by 3 per cent each year until 2050. This implies that most regions must reach peak production now or during the next decade, rendering many operational and planned fossil fuel projects unviable. We probably present an underestimate of the production changes required, because a greater than 50 per cent probability of limiting warming to 1.5 °C requires more carbon to stay in the ground and because of uncertainties around the timely deployment of negative emission technologies at scale.

GLOBETROTTER: Máte někdo nějaký lepší zdroj než Lidovky? Ono už jen toto: "Prstenec zóny města, která by do budoucna měla být bez aut, ohraničuje berlínská podzemka S-Bahn." svědčí o diletantismu pisálka.
Řeší ta petice taky motorky (které v noci budí lidi mnohem víc než auta), elektrokola, elektrokoloběžky atd.?

aneb you cannot solve climate change with ideology...

smesovat emise uhliku se znecistenim, odpalkovat drevo, kdyz zdroje energie se daj vyhodnotit pouze kontextualne, jelikoz jde o ruznorode cykly, ne jednotlive faze cyklu (drevo, maso, zrno, ...)

tezky pro nas malej mozecek